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))

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)

I thought it was pronounced "Vayt" with the 'ei' making an 'ay' sound —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.210.249 (talk) 18:27, 9 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)

Well, then it's jargon. Why the hell does it matter? Some guy (talk) 05:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

Ah good, now of course I would like a second opinion but as it stands its not balanced, IE a larger cons paragraph with the pro ending with another con. BTW the RT cream of the crop percentage keeps changing from 43 to 46%. I'm reading 46% but it keeps getting changed back, why? Stabby Joe (talk) 01:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

WWWW.RT vs. UK.RT is why. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

To expand on Erik's clarification of the numbers, we generally use the US Tomatoes site because it samples a larger portion of top critics, whereas the UK samples less and thus their numbers do not generally reflect the same level of representation (even though they list the same people) that the US numbers do.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thats why I like wiki, you learn things lol! Anyway back to the original point. Stabby Joe (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

To clarify my stance, if it is unbalanced then be bold and adjust it. I'm not trying to skirt the responsibilities, I just haven't seen the movie yet and don't want to spoil it for myself by rewriting the entire reception section. It should be balanced, whether by an equal number of pos/negs in two separate paragraphs, or by providing opposing view points side by side on a specific subject.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I would usually just edit it but gven the amount of people editting it, I don't want to start any warring. I'll add a pro comment from a non-US source for some balance perhaps? Stabby Joe (talk) 02:53, 11 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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.189.51 (talk • contribs)

Actually, I was talking about a misapplication of wikipolicy and procedure. The article is misquoted. 119.12.232.100 (talk) 08:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone should delete "Interview with Paul Greengrass"

The final link on the page goes to a page that launches lots of nasty advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.239.124 (talk • contribs)

Youth marketing

I noticed in watching this movie that there were a lot of teenagers watching the movie. Is this similar to the cereal manufacturers marketing sugar coated cereal to children (i.e. marketing rape and lots of violence) with 'super heros'? Is there some parallel perhaps there? I think the cereal manufacturers are in hot water for marketing unhealthy cereal to children; however, this movie is pushed to children in slick costumes... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.51.152.180 (talk • contribs)

From IMDB:Rated R for strong graphic violence, sexuality, nudity and language.

If you think costumes mean its for kids, well, you're an idiot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.107.159 (talk) 09:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Suppose they made a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle/ Hannibal Lecter hybrid movie. In the previews/marketing we basically see Donatello and Michaelangelo coolly swinging their nunchaku while the camera pans around, then fade to R-rating. Now play that in theatres for several months and then release the movie; how far did that R rating go and who sat in that theatre? The marketing previews for this move were basically costumed superheros panning around in a cool environment, fading to an R-rating sign. Now, how does this dovetail with youth marketing issues? By the way, if you think frosted sugar bombs are for an obese 12 year old then _you_ are an idiot. 69.51.152.180 (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't seem very important. It's a movie about superheroes; what else are trailers supposed to show? Most trailers seen on tv have a PG rating, so you won't get the violence in the movie. The film still has to sell itself, and this is done through flashy trailers. The responsibility lies on parents to know that this movie is not appropriate for children. P.gandal (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Black Freighter

I'm not sure we need this article. As is stands, it contains information that is already present in this article, so is an unintentional content fork. The precedent for "deleted scenes" (as this is what they are) is a bit murky, mind, but I don't think other film articles have them. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There's always the possibility we could create a proper article for Tales of the Black Freighter as it appears in the comic and as its own film. Alientraveller (talk) 17:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

My thinking exactly when I saw that article - it would stop the repetition of content and could easily be made notable I'm sure. So my suggestion is: Move to Tales of the Black Freighter. (Emperor (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC))

Ta-dah. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

What about Tales of the Black Freighter (film)? —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Simplest thing would be to turn it into a redirect and merge in any content not already there with a note (and link) in the edit summary. We could merge the edit histories but it is probably not needed as long as we do that. (Emperor (talk) 05:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC))

I get making an article for the DVD, but there are some problems with making an article devoted to both the DVD and the bits from the Watchmen comics, as I have explained on the Tales of the Black Freighter talk page. Simply put, the DVD is a distinct document from the film; I can buy one and watch the other at the theatre. In regards to the source material, in Watchmen, Tales of the Black Freighter is more of a recurring motif that it's physically impossible to read separate from the story, given scenes and dialogue overlapp with the grreater narrative. Not to mention the content on the source material is wholly redundant to the subsection in Watchmen, where it is dealt with comprehesively without ned for spinning off. We only need an article for the DVD. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think (Wesley; Erik) that you're confusing the reasoning for including (note: not "splitting") the comic on the sub-page. It doesn't make a difference that you can't read it separately (and you can, if you try hard!). The point is that there is a LOT of information about the Tales comic - real-world and in-world. In the comics themselves, the back-matter of one issue was devoted solely to Tales, providing it with a rich history in the Watchmen world (mixing real-world and W-world facts and psuedo-facts). The real world history is also well-documented (I wrote about Tales quite extensively, and much of that was cut when the comic's page was rewritten) - it echoes the fleeting EC pirate comics; Gibbons echoed Orlando (and then Orlando was able to produce a speculative page for the back-matter); it parallels Veidt's story (as suggested by third-parties and noted in at least two places by Moore). It was initially a very minor, passing thought that Gibbons had when the two were fleshing out the world and batting ideas back and forth - and Moore saw the potential and folded it in. Bernie, whose sole purpose is to read the comic counterpoint, has a name (almost-definitely echoing Krigstein, see Piracy) setting his character arc to be more poignant than if he were a nameless face in a crowd.

The Watchmen page would continue to have (considerable) information on Tales, but can also now have a "main" link to delve more deeply - a criticism of my spending more time talking about Tales was that it was not directly relevant. It would be on its own page. It certainly is NOT merely "a recurring motif," it's an essential counterpoint, a vital insight into a world that has real superheroes and a metafictional conceit par excellance. It may currently be "redundant to the subsection in Watchmen," but the point is surely then that it will not always be. Ultimately, the subsection in Watchmen will be a precis of the new page, which will be able to go into more detail about the purpose of this vital title - so vital that it has inspired droves of fans to search for back issues, and been considered several times as a spin-off title. The context of the comic is essential to understanding the DVD/cut film scenes; its entirely irrelevant (and obvious) what the purpose of the standalone release was to Snyder/Warner, but it is exceptionally important to set down why Tales is such an utterly crucial part of the Watchmen picture - and to give it the space it deserves, it needs its own page. ntnon (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The "Tales of the Black Freighter" section can be spun off when there is enough content on the Watchmen article that it overwhelms that particular article. Don't spin off based on assumptions that there will be much, much more, especially because Watchmen was overhauled in a major way and should be considered pretty comprehensive already. Any additional information is probably not significant. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Music Section - Koyaanisqatsi

It's worth mentioning in the Music section that the film also contains music by Philip Glass from the 1983 film Koyaanisqatsi (the music is featured during Dr. Manhattan's origin story). This is thematically significant not only because of the time period of Koyaanisqatsi, but also because that film deals with the idea of overly-complex civilization, with apocalyptic undertones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koyaanisqatsi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geekmansworld (talk • contribs) 22:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources available include Film Music and Chicago Daily Herald. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Production

I think this article would benefit from more notes on the production itself, for example the special effects use, the choreography and effects used in action sequences, etc. It seems to me that far too much of the article covers film not being made during the development hell period, and too little of the article covers the actual production of the actually produced version of the film. Some guy (talk) 05:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that's because there possibly isn't anything out (at the moment) covering the filming aspect of the movie. I'd suspect that the DVD will contain all of that information, and possibly some specific trade magazines might talk to the director/crew in future interviews before the DVD. But since no one is pushing this thing through a review of any sort right now, I don't think it's a dire issue with the page, and the page could probably pass GA's "broad coverage" criteria (though it will need to be addressed before any FAC).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense. Thank you. I've spent far too long reading text off of a monitor today and I am mentally exhausted; I should probably take a break. Some guy (talk) 05:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Soundtrack/score

I made a minor update to note that a bit of Mozart's "Requiem" is used near the end of the film, when Dan and Laurie are leaving. It's on the score, not the soundtrack. However, from what I've seen, the score is credited just to Tyler Bates with no mention of Mozart, which could make it frustrating for those of us who recognized the piece and wanted to know the name. (And IMDb doesn't list it either.) If any editors know more about this excerpt of "Requiem" (e.g., anything more specific about which part of the overall composition it comes from) it would be helpful to see that added.12.217.39.100 (talk) 07:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

That is because the "score" and the "soundtrack" are not the same. The "score" is the music credited specifically for the film (which is what Tyler Bates did), while the "soundtrack" is music that was created by other people (not necessarily for this film) that is used at specific moments within the movie.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I [don’t] think it [is] filmable".

Doesn't this sentence imply that the original quote would be "I think it filmable"? "I think it filmable" has the exact opposite meaning of "I don't think it is filmable". If the bracketed words are replacing other words to clarify the meaning instead of added words, which I assume they are, I think it would be better to use the original quote anyway. Kravitch (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The original quote isn't in the correct tense, that is why there are bracketed words. Check the source. Moore says "didn't", not "don't", and "was", not "is". It doesn't fit the tense of the sentence it is being quoted it, thus why it was changed to "don't" and "is". The meaning is the same, just the tense changed. If the original quote was "I think it was filmable", than it would completely wrong for us to change what he said to sound like he meant something completely different.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Box Office "Disappointment"?

Does anyone else think that this page should at least acknowledge the fact that the film's opening weekend was considered by many to be a disappointment? I know that Warner Bros. said that it did as expected because it's longer than 300, but because the film was released in 3,611 theaters, compared to the 3,103 for 300, that could have canceled out. Several sources, including Variety, reference that WB reportedly had hoped that it would have opened bigger (especially because of advance ticket sales for midnight screenings), and that the decline on Thursday and Friday were due to the core demographic (polled to be men over 25) having seen it already at midnight on Friday. Other factors could be some negative early reviews.

I've gotten feedback that it's not relevant, or is somehow redundant, but I think it's an point, especially considering that the main question that crops up concerning comic book movies (especially its reported $125-150 million budget and the aggressive ad campaign) is: "Will anyone who's not already a fan of the source come see it?" And the numbers seem to indicate that they haven't. I mean it's clearly not a flop (and we'll see more in the coming weeks), but the opening definitely seems to be less than expected.

Just bouncing this off you guys.

Variety: "Warners had hoped "Watchmen" would match, or even best, the $70.9 million domestic opening of Zack Snyder's previous film, "300," which bowed on the same weekend in 2007. Overseas the "Watchmen" debut also failed to match the "300" opening numbers."[2]

Entertainment Weekly: "This movie, with a similar pedigree [to 300], a similar fan base, a similar release pattern in more than 3,000 venues, including several expensive-ticket IMAX locations, should be pretty damn big, too. But will it be bigger than 300? Marginally, yes, I think. Watchmen could be hurt by its nearly three-hour running time, but it's based on a monumental book about which excitement has been building for two decades. What's more, it's opening in a few hundred more theaters than 300 did, and ticket prices have gone up in the years since the Spahhhhrtahhhns stormed the box office." [3]

LA Times[4]

LA Times Blog: "Most of the buzz in Hollywood today was about whether "Watchmen's" $56-million weekend take was a boffo opening or a bust (since the Zack Snyder-directed film didn't come close to the $70 million Snyder's "300" made on exactly the same date two years ago)."[5]

Wall Street Journal: "The R-rated, comic-book adaptation fell short of hitting the kind of numbers that the studio hoped would turn it into the next "Dark Knight."[6]

Newsarama: "Warner Bros. was looking for Watchmen to equal or beat $70.9 million domestically, which would put it on par with director Zack Snyder’s previous comic adaptation, 300. Neither domestic nor international box office receipts matched the numbers for 300."[7] Briguy7783 (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Making note of what Warner Bros. had hoped would be important (remember, I was discouraging those IMDb "analysts"). I think we can probably summarize all of these up into a couple of sentences, and then move the statement made by the head of distribution to the end of this stuff (since his comments came afterward).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You want to do it,  BIGNOLE ? I'm just a newbie, and I know I have huge issues being concise. :-) Or should we just wait to see what this weekend's B.O. holds? Briguy7783 (talk) 04:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, but I have work in a little bit so I won't be able to do it till later on today.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

[Untitled section]

Why is the intro of the article obsessed with corporate details instead of information about the creative work? Would an article on Macbeth put the Shakespeare's financial conidtion in the lead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloop (talk • contribs) 23:41, 13 March 2009

Country of Origin

Watchmen has been established to be a joint British and American production and as such had its world Premier in London, United Kingdom.

It is based on who owns the film. Warner Bros is the sole film rights owner, and they are an American company. Here is a list of every company that helped finance production: Warner Bros. Pictures, Paramount Pictures, Legendary Pictures (in association with), Lawrence Gordon Productions, and DC Comics. They're ALL American. The only reason MSN put the UK up there is because of Alan Moore, who is English.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Box office dropped 78%

http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2009/03/saturday-witch.html - Appatently it dropped 78% in the box office one week from opening day. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 14:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Currently that's an estimation. Once Box Office Mojo has the real numbers we'll be able to report how that drop places it amongst others who dropped significantly.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

VFXWorld articles

• Scott Lukowski Talks Conceptualizing Watchmen
• Deconstructing Watchmen -- Part 1
• Deconstructing Watchmen -- Part 2
• Zack Snyder Talks Watchmen

Articles from VFXWorld that could be used. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Juspeczyk/Jupiter 2.0

Echoing the name debate up top, I noticed Laurie wasn't called Laurie Juspecyk in the theatrical cut. She was credited as Laurie Jupiter and Rorschach called her "Jupiter" when she left the restaurant. (Maybe the Nite Owl goggles called her something else when it scanned her, but I was focused elsewhere.) Should this be fixed in the article? Looking at that horrible lede, it seems we have no problem diverging from the GN article in other places. =P 24.228.54.78 (talk) 22:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)