Talk:Watchmen (film)

Viral Website?

http://www.thenewfrontiersman.net/ its worth mentioning —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.182.228.205 (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This article talks about some fake viral sits. Thenewfrontiersman.net is not mentioned and I also found another article that talks about it, so I'm assuming it's real. – Zntrip 00:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

BUDGET

Not $120m - total budget with marketing costs is $150m, as quote by Warner Bros. I would update the page myself, but don't know how to add references. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090118/ap_en_mo/watchmen_movie_lawsuit). Armuk (talk) 11:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction tag

The paragraph first says Charles McKeown rewrote the script, but then it says this second draft "was credited to Gilliam, Warren Skaaren, and Hamm". There is a discrepancy there that needs to be addressed. - 207.237.223.118 (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Good eye, get right on it, come back when you find out something new. Good luck. ThuranX (talk) 04:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Your edit summary "not like your fingers are broken" -- Did you really think it was absolutely necessary to be gratuitously rude and insulting? If so, why?

Please read WP:ETIQUETTE. Thank you. --207.237.223.118 (talk) 06:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was. Tagging and running is NOT good etiquette. If you are familiar enough with Wikipedia to tag, you are familiar enough to fix. So Fix It. Do the work. And don't be surprised if people more familiar know already something you don't about an article, and revert it because there is no contradiction, just statements of fact. Sometimes a person is hired to write, but doesn't get credit. It's really that simple. And Drive by tagging is not a good faith act, it's a means of provocation. You may have come to talk, which is a half-step better, but you shouted, effectively 'I don't understand, make me smarter' and ran. Perhaps you should learn to do less tagging and more researching. If you don't like researching, then I suggest you start learning how, or accept that more of your tag and run edits will be reverted. ThuranX (talk) 08:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The tags exist for a reason -- to be used. It's not "tagging and running" to use a tag. By that logic, tags should not exist. And I find it odd that one would answer, 'Yes, it was" to "Did you really think it was absolutely necessary to be gratuitously rude and insulting?" I don't believe there's ever a reason to be rude.

In any case, the McKeown claim needs a citation. If he really worked on the script, why isn't he credited? Yes, uncredited rewrites exist -- but where did this claim originate? I found mirror references of this Wikipedia claim, but no independent confirmation online regarding McKeown. This needs a citation. -- 207.237.223.118 (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

So where does the citation for who it's credited to comes from? It's all sourced to the 30th citation, David Hughes' book. Alientraveller (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX, your snark is hostile, unnecessary, and only helps to discourage people from contributing to WP in good faith. That you go further and insist that your rude behavior is necessary and good etiquette is beyond the Pale. I suggest you take a break from WP for awhile. 68.73.93.130 (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Watchmen Blog

Hey,

Just wanted to say that http://blog.watchmenmovie.ca is in fact the official blog set up by Warner Bros. Canada, so the link deserves to be up under the "Marketing" and "External Links" section.

Thanks, Jake —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jake86 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The official blog is at the official site. Alientraveller (talk) 11:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If by "official site" you mean the American site (www.watchmenmovie.com), that is not the blog. There's a production diary, but it's not a full blog. At the Canadian site (which is in fact official and set up by Warner Bros. Canada), there is a blog allowing people to comment and discuss. Go check it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.207.10 (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's see if someone else isn't too sure about its importance. Alientraveller (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but it's not really about "importance." It's a fact, so it belongs on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.207.10 (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Untrue, there are many unimportant facts and unless there's something worthwhile from that site other than mentioning it exists twice and not even linking it in Marketing, don't. Alientraveller (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I was really suspicious about this "official blog" when I saw all its posts were uncredited hyperbole, and then I checked and I see it's not official, it's a full advertisement by the Canadian film magazine Tribute. This has nothing to do with WB at all. You want info on Alan Moore? Read Wikipedia. You want downloads, trailers? Visit the real official site. Sorry if you got confused, but this is just an ad. We link the main official site to save space, not the UK site (unless it's a British film), not the production diary, not an advert by some magazine with a little WB logo at the bottom. Alientraveller (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's the Warner Bros. Canada website set up by Tribute.ca. That's the way we do it up here. It is official and it is set up by Warner Bros. I don't understand what the issue is and why you're so adamant about taking it down. It's the Canadian site, plain and simple, and it hosts the official blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.207.10 (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I give up per WP:3RR. Don't be surprised if someone else removes the link. Alientraveller (talk) 23:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hughes book

As my fellow editor Erik and I were discussing on our respective talk pages, there are several citations for the David Hughes chapter "Who Watches the Watchmen? - How The Greatest Graphic Novel of Them All Confounded Hollywood" in the book The Greatest Sci-Fi Movies Never Made. Except the the information about Terry Gilliam's stage of the script, on page 147, none of the other Hughes cites have page numbers. Erik had gotten the book from a library long ago, and I don't have it. Might someone out there have this book, and be able to supply page numbers for its citations?

And hey! Someone (not me) has put in cites for a Watchmen article I wrote. Cool! -- 207.237.223.118 (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Advertising

The film is being advertised in the game Saints Row 2 on various billboards around the city —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.5.44 (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

And TrackMania Nations for that matter. I'm not sure how vital these are to the article though - advertisements in video games are pretty common nowadays. SpinachPuffs (talk) 15:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

yeah, this is just trivia. ThuranX (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

C-Class rated for Comics Project

As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T 14:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Critical reception dispute

There has been a significant passage of negative reviews being added to the "Critical reception" section, which seems to disturb the balance of reviews. An effort was made to trim back the number of negative reviews so there were slightly less of them than positive reviews based on the sample size found at Rotten Tomatoes. Metacritic has only seven reviews (usually maxes out at over 30, especially for mainstream films), so this is too early to start treating the consensus as accurate. Especially when the film is not out yet! What do others think? This is the negatively slanted revision, and This is the more balanced revision. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Sample sizes of seven (Metacritic) and six (Rotten Tomatoes' selected notable reviewers) are far too small from which to glean accurate statistics. As such, I concur with the recommendation to use the second version until both sites have assembled more reviews. Steve ^{T • C} 00:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

External links

Firstly, I expect this to be an article full of fan boys and girls. Hence, please don't get upset with me doing my job. Also, please remember that there are loads of things that could be linked to. So we can't just take things that could be worthwhile: we're looking for the solid gold links containing that people reading that article will want.

I have cleaned up the external links with a few changes:

1. Removing the blog. I can see this is contested, but it's effectively an extension to the official site link. Hence, what's the point? Also, WP:EL states that blogs should be avoided (point 11).
2. Cutting down the links to general review/information sites. There were too many. People aren't going to know where to go. If they already have a favourite, they can search for the film there. I left in imdb (because it has lots of information), metacritic (because it has links to lots of individual reviews) and rottentomatoes (because it has user's reviews).
3. Removing link to youtube channel. Seems more like advertising than knowledge expansion.
4. Removing interviews and individual reviews. There are hundreds; we can't list them all so why link any?
5. Removing 2003 screenplay link. I don't feel comfortable sending readers to a download side full of adverts. And neither will they.
6. Removing 1989 screenplay. Is that legal? If it is, sling it back in. But I didn't want to risk leaving it there.
7. Removing concept art. Way too specific.

As ever with my EL cleanup, feel free to put some sites back in if you feel you have valid reason. It might be worth writing here what you did and why so that people can discuss it. Please don't just blindly revert my edit. I admit that I'm nothing of an expert on the subject, but that's good when tough decisions from an outsiders point of view need to be made.

Happy editing! — Greggers ^{(t • c)} 17:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

What the hell, man! I wanted to the read the previous scripts!!! (JoeLoeb (talk) 06:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC))

Pronunciation of "Veidt"

"Because of the German-born depiction of Veidt, Goode pronounced his surname as "Vight"."

Isn't this how it is pronounced anyway, comic-book or otherwise? I can't get the cited link to open, but I am pretty sure it has always been pronounced "vight" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.118.44.226 (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I pronounced Veidt like "vague". :) Alientraveller (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

This Movie has full frontal nudity, intense sex scenes. and worst of all it has more gore, and violent, bloody,disgusting scenes than most horror films do!!Dont bring the kids

This Movie has full frontal nudity intense sex scenes and its more gorey and bloody than most full fledged horror films,dont bring the kids if you go at all.

Im sure that 90 % of the people going to see this movie are NOT going to know what they are getting into. This movie is as bad or worse than the punisher movies. I was waiting for jason to popout with his skii mask. This is not really much of a superhero movie at all. Ill stick with XMEN , which is worthy of about a G rating compared to watchmen. Im truly surprised it wasnt given an NC-17 rating .If you judge a society by the movies it makes Id say this movie just condemned us. How many millions of kids are going to end up seeing it with their parents only to be scarred for life or get stuck being dragged out midfilm, or both?

THe only good scenes IMHO are the ones involving the blue guy, who is fully naked all the time by the way. THe best effects were the scenes with him in it which totaled maybe 30 minutes of the entire movie. Id say definatly wait for the DVD so you can fAST FORWARD past all the boring and bloody disgusting scenes.

Just wanted to warn those of you that took the time to do a little research first, I wish I had now.68.104.93.212 (talk) 12:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

If only we had some way of being warned, like some kind of ratings system, something that could say: "Rated R for strong graphic violence, sexuality, nudity and language".--CyricZ (talk) 13:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)