Watchmen

[Miyabi]

I may have worded that wrong.  What I meant was I liked the point that was being made by the movie, but the look and feel of the movie wasn't appealing to me.

[Bookstore Guy]

i felt the presentation was fantastic. the opening credits were amazingly well done. Snyder really does need to learn a few new comic-book-action-sequence tricks other than the slow-mo from 300 and Watchmen, but i felt the movie looked amazing.

Of course i like dark and gritty.

And I saw it in IMAX - everything in IMAX looks great.

[CthulhuKefka]

I've read a lot of "I told you so type" articles the past few days harping the  77.9% (according to box office returns for this last Friday) drop in ticket sales, but anyone that thinks about it shouldn't find it that hard to believe. It's an almost 3 hour R-Rated movie that does not pander to the lowest common denominator. I think it was marketed wrong, all the trailers I saw were making it out to be in the same vein as Iron Man or Spiderman 3, when it obviously is targeted at a smaller percentage of moviegoers.

I think a lot of people shovel a lot of hate towards Zach Snyder, but I think he did the best darned job he could under the circumstances. Just imagine if Watchmen had fallen into, I dunno, say Joel Schumacher's hands. 

[Reaves]

I've heard a lot of people say a lot of different things about this movie. Not quite so much in the "it was bloody amazing" vein, but I've heard a lot of people say that it was decent, but with some flaws. However, a couple of my friends saw it and like half of them left before it ended...

So. What is this movie? Someone categorize it and put it in nice orderly boxes for me so I can make a decision about it lol

P.S. with ribbons

[CthulhuKefka]

I've heard a lot of people say a lot of different things about this movie. Not quite so much in the "it was bloody amazing" vein, but I've heard a lot of people say that it was decent, but with some flaws. However, a couple of my friends saw it and like half of them left before it ended...

So. What is this movie? Someone categorize it and put it in nice orderly boxes for me so I can make a decision about it lol

P.S. with ribbons

It's a superhero movie, but not the same kind as Iron Man. It's a lot darker and more mature. It's a movie you actually have to pay attention to.

It really is a movie for the fans of the comic, although that doesn't stop people from enjoying it if they haven't read the comic.

Honestly though, the largest majority of dissent for the movie that I've read (not here, mind you) has boiled down to either a) "I didn't get it because I wasn't paying attention;" or b) every time I saw a certain someone's genitalia I had to either giggle or scoff because I'm so manly that any genitalia other than my own frightens me."

It's not a popcorn action movie.

I was actually glad when I walked out of the theater and overheard people (who I could tell had never read the book from hearing their conversation) that were debating the message of the movie. That made me very happy, since I don't hear that kind of banter often. 

So to actually answer your question, if you like movies that have an almost philosophical conundrum, wrapped up with awesome setting and some pretty hardcore characters, then this is a movie for you. 

[Comfortable Madness]

I've read a lot of "I told you so type" articles the past few days harping the  77.9% (according to box office returns for this last Friday) drop in ticket sales, but anyone that thinks about it shouldn't find it that hard to believe. It's an almost 3 hour R-Rated movie that does not pander to the lowest common denominator. I think it was marketed wrong, all the trailers I saw were making it out to be in the same vein as Iron Man or Spiderman 3, when it obviously is targeted at a smaller percentage of moviegoers.

I think a lot of people shovel a lot of hate towards Zach Snyder, but I think he did the best darned job he could under the circumstances. Just imagine if Watchmen had fallen into, I dunno, say Joel Schumacher's hands. 

77.9%??? Gah! That hurts my heart. Such a good movie. It deserves much more than to be remembered as the comic book movie that lost a bunch of money. Hopefully through dvd sales and such they can recover alot of that money. I also thought Snyder did an amazing job.

[Fellfrosch]

Bookstore Guy was right about the opening credits: the rest of the movie could have sucked, and I would have loved it based on the credit sequence alone.

So. What is this movie? Someone categorize it and put it in nice orderly boxes for me so I can make a decision about it lol

This is a movie about superheroes trying to define their role in the world: why do they do what they do? Should they be doing it at all? How far should they go? It asks questions and discusses issues most superhero stories ignore, and it does it with some of the most interesting superhero characters you've ever seen. There is action, but most of the movie is talking and thinking.

[Bookstore Guy]

To go along with Fell, it is the thought process of how they define themselves in the world that was interesting to me. It asks some of the same questions that were asked in Dark Knight, but it gives us a variety of responses. Rorschach comments on the lack of psychotics wearing the mask now-days, and goes on to detail just how far he will go (VERY far). While I loved Dark Knight, I felt that the responses the characters in Watchmen took were more believable on the whole.

and yes, /high-five to Fell about the opening credits. they were so full of absolute win. I'd recommend seeing the movie just to see the best credits ever done (and to see the prison scene).

[maxonennis]

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I'm shocked that they didn't take out the frontal nudity.

[CthulhuKefka]

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I'm shocked that they didn't take out the frontal nudity.

Why is that? I mean, why is it even an issue? The comic had nudity, they kept that aspect of it. It's just genitalia, we all have it in one form or another, so why the big fuss over it?

[The Jade Knight]

Statistically, higher ratings = lower sales.  The film would probably have done remarkably better had it been PG-13.

[CthulhuKefka]

Statistically, higher ratings = lower sales.  The film would probably have done remarkably better had it been PG-13.

Yeah, but I believe the full impact of the story could not be accurately portrayed in a PG-13 capacity. The story would be diluted to the point of it being laughable. This is a rough, dark storyline, one that well deserves its R-Rating. I'm not too worried that its drop in sales is anything to be alarmed at. It's a movie for the fanboys, and this fanboy is happy. 

[maxonennis]

Why is that? I mean, why is it even an issue? The comic had nudity, they kept that aspect of it. It's just genitalia, we all have it in one form or another, so why the big fuss over it?

It worked for the comic because it is a draw two dimensional cartoon character. There is a big difference to seeing a drawing of a naked person and seeing a real person naked. And again, I haven't seen the movie (I'm not big on cinema).

[Bookstore Guy]

i didn't actually feel it was a big deal. the character was entirely CG rendered, so I didn't feel any real difference between it and the comic. and once again, the context of his nakedness renders it virtually meaningless. in fact, i thought it looked much worse when he wore a speedo. I felt i got his character more completely when he was going commando.

[CthulhuKefka]

Why is that? I mean, why is it even an issue? The comic had nudity, they kept that aspect of it. It's just genitalia, we all have it in one form or another, so why the big fuss over it?

It worked for the comic because it is a draw two dimensional cartoon character. There is a big difference to seeing a drawing of a naked person and seeing a real person naked. And again, I haven't seen the movie (I'm not big on cinema).

I'm not understanding the problem with it. Obviously a drawing isn't real, but neither is the CGI they used to make his blue genitalia.

i didn't actually feel it was a big deal. the character was entirely CG rendered, so I didn't feel any real difference between it and the comic. and once again, the context of his nakedness renders it virtually meaningless. in fact, i thought it looked much worse when he wore a speedo. I felt i got his character more completely when he was going commando.

It fits with his character very well. Right after the accident, he wore more clothes. Then, as he gradually began to disconnect with humanity, he got nakeder (is that even a word?) and nakeder.