Talk:Watchmen (film)

Someone should delete "Interview with Paul Greengrass"

The final link on the page goes to a page that launches lots of nasty advertising.

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))

Yeh, and someone will want to look at concept art. Someone else will want a storyboard. Others will want to know how to contact the gaffer and key grip. We can't accommodate for everyone, so we aim to please the general audience. Specialist subjects and specifics can be found elsewhere. Greggers ^{(t • c)} 18:37, 8 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)

I watched one of those Veidt comercials on youtube and they pronounced it as "Vight". --TFunk (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Juspeczyk/Jupiter

I'm guessing overzealous fans of comic have kept out the change of Sally Juspeczyk name in the film to Sally Jupiter. Check the IMDB (or go watch the film, it is not only in the credits that way, but several characters call her that), this is arguing with reality. (NOTE: this is the second time I have put this up for discussion. I did not edit the article on the off chance that this issue had already been debated and for some reason allowed to stand this way. However, someone went against wiki policy and removed my discussion from this page.) RoyBatty42 (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about removing this bit, but keep in mind some "overzealous" fans hadn't seen the film yet. But this is confusing: yes, Sally's surname is Jupiter. Laurie's name is Juspecyzk. Alientraveller (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Clean Up

Can people clean up the plot? I imagine that there are quite a few minor errors in there and the chronology of the film may also be wrong, but I feel I've built a good foundation. I don't think I quite understood the film in honesty. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.138.245.4 (talk • contribs)

hell

even if development hell is an industry term, it's still slang. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.161.122.160 (talk • contribs)

Reception balance

Isn't the negative paragraph a bit larger than the pro, which would actually be the other way around given the RT score... although I should emphasize A BIT so we also aren't biased. Stabby Joe (talk) 13:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

IMO, there should be an equal number of negative and positive reviews in the section, and sometimes it is best to intersperse them throughout each paragraph. In other words, if you find some people commenting primarily on the script, then include both a negative and positive side for the script. If you see people focusing on the casting, then try and include pos. and neg. opinions of that. If they exist. Sometimes each opinion focuses on something else, so you cannot do that. P.S. I removed the "fresh" because "fresh/rotten" is RT's personal assessment. We only use them as an aggregate counter of critic opinion, and critics don't assign "fresh" or "rotten" to their personal reviews.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Receptions sections are an odd thing because in some instances people will say it has to be equal whereas others say it should be SLIGHTLY more reflective of the response... I know they differ between films, games, music etc but is there a firm wiki guideline for film receptions please? Stabby Joe (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Per: WP:MOSFILMS, "To maintain a neutral point of view, it is recommended to quote a reasonable balance of these reviews. This may not always be possible or desirable (e.g. films that have been almost universally acclaimed or panned), and best judgment should again be used." - So, unless the film is 100% loved or hated, this should generally be easy to attain.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Minor edit request

In the Reviews section the article cited from here [1] is miscited. A wiki editor has added the clarification "[to distrust adaptations]", but the article actually reads "not because he mistrusts Hollywood". The clarification needed for the quote should probably be something like: "[watchmen is inherently umfilmable]" which is likely to be closer to what the article was referring to. Possibly the quote doesn't need clarification at all.

I'd appreciate someone making this edit.

119.12.232.100 (talk) 00:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this movie, in particular, will draw a lot of attention to the concept of a "movie-review". It seems that the reviews for this movie are extremely opinionated and show no actual demonstrative knowledge as to what substantiates their claim that it is a bad movie or a good movie. We notice at the end of this section there's a large focus on Snyder's adaptive style which is becoming quickly associated with poor movie quality and lacking any vision. It is unclear why this is necessarily the case, and this is more or less indicative that movie reviewers are simply trying to strike oil in their assessments. - Neveov