![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
"yet staying true"?? This is speculation and heavily POV 24.33.28.52 15:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Are you presenting this as evidence of veracity or something? The phrase "staying true" will be POV regardless. 24.33.28.52 17:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Until valid citations are provided for the casting of John Cusack, Daniel Craig, and Sigourney Weaver, these names will be removed until further notice. The sources of the rumors seem to be [1] (see Scoop 11, dated back to 2004) and [2] (dated back to 2003). Until then, confirmations such as the director will be allowed. Erik 21:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Is there any evidence of an expected release date? IMDb shows it's still in scripting phase, so 2007 or 2008 seems likely. -- SidP 00:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how to quote the url properly... Sorry for the all the stupid edits, but I don't know the right quoting method. The problem is wikipedia doesn't like the | in the url... stupid ew.-- Aranc23 14:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I've worked out the chronology of the Watchmen project using a variety of sources to tie everything together in a kind of a timeline. The resulting section is obviously large and may qualify for its own article, taking up so much space. I'm not sure what the qualifications are for breaking down an article into multiple articles.
In addition, I took the liberty of removing a previous edit about Moore supporting Hayter's script. The reason I did this was that in my going through all the Watchmen sources, Moore had a lot of interesting things to say about why the comic book could not be adapted to the film. This could warrant its own section, as it seems important to have the writer's take on the adaptation. I will see if I can do this. Any thoughts on this?
Feel free to go through what I've added and make any contributive edits. If you feel that certain parts can be taken out, feel free to discuss with me here. -- Erik 20:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Just a brief notice here to acknowledge's Erikster's great hard work revising the entire article. ThuranX 22:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)There was a sentence at the end of the Production section about tests done of Dr. Manhattan. I reviewed the citation, which didn't give any more detail than that, so it seems rather vague for inclusion, or to surmise what the director could be referring to. I've removed it so hopefully the matter is clarified (and more detailed) in a future citation. — Erik ( talk • contrib • review) - 14:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
It's odd and its offhand, but in an interview Darren Aronofsky mentioned that David Bowie had told him he was developing a Watchmen rock opera [3]. Is there any way/cause for this to be mentioned? -- InShaneee 08:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
It sits perfectly in the Watchmen article, and this is about the film. WikiNew 13:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Which citation indicates that the film will come out in late 2008? I only see mention of the release date in the lead paragraph, but nowhere in the article. — Erik ( talk • contrib • review) - 17:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
A rather easy assumption considering Snyder will wrap filming this year. WikiNew 17:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
A stupid assumption. It assumes that it'll be completed with a minimum of post-production. Anyway, various interviews have said 2009-- Isocyanide 05:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The article might be a bit misleading. It says the Alex Tse script threw out the contemporary setting and restored the 1986setting. As I recall, Alex Tse's script was modern, complete with islamic terrorists. Snyder has said that he wants watchmen in it's original time period, but I don't think Tse's scripts have had anything to do with that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.238.216.161 ( talk) 03:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
Here's a podcast where Snyder is supposed to mention information about pre-production for Watchmen. Can anyone listen to the podcast and see if there's any useful information to be extracted? — Erik ( talk • contrib • review) - 14:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
How does one play it? The download icon appears and then nothing happens. Alientraveller 14:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
It was focused on 300 ( Peter Jackson liked it) and the interviewers wanting him to handle every fictional property including an R-rated Star Wars, but Snyder did talk about budgets for Watchmen. He's having difficulties, Warners having " amnesia about 300 ever coming out" and the actors wanting "pay day" with a film they percieve to be like X-Men when it's an art-film. He also gave a thumbs up to a fan's idea of Will Wheaton as Nite Owl and took the mick out of Arnold Schwarzneggar playing Dr. Manhattan (I think it was him, I was just giggling). He also discussed a little bit on adapting the novel which I didn't find too interesting. For anyone wanting to dig up more, he starts discussing Watchmen around the middle of the broadcast. Alientraveller 15:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)I added info to the casting section about AICN's casting info that was published today. If this is inappropriate, all apologies, it seems relevant though even if they don't end up being cast. Fullmetaljacuzzi 21:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)If Snyder's project fails, which I think it's more likely to not, this and the budget dispute can be good additions. Alientraveller 17:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
[4] has news that KR has officially said no. However, this is his fan club site, and it's the webmaster's claim of an email. Hopefully, we'll get a better source soon on this. ThuranX 11:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Actor Jude Law is a fan of the Watchmen and even has a tattoo of Rorshach. He has expressed great interest in portraying Rorshach if a film of Watchmen is ever made (although he has stated he would probably end up playing Ozymandias instead). NemFX 01:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
For those few instances (Cruise, Perlman), where things went beyond wishings, can we find dates to better put the meeting times into context? I know we're going off interviews which do NOT overtly reveal the dates, but even if we can put a year or season (Cruise's sounds like it was late 2006, as the rumors started in jan 2007, for example), then we can better contextualize how every stage of this process has been slower than pouring frozen molasses uphill both ways in the rain. Or whatever. ThuranX 22:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
As of now, Alan Moore has said nothing about the fact that Zack Snyder is slated to direct the film (though he has commented on the script, etc.). That's to the best of my current knowledge. I think that's quite significant. If and when Moore does comment on Snyder's direction of the film, I suspect he won't have much friendly to say of the director of 300. While that is just my own personal speculation, I do think the fact that Moore hasn't made any statements about Snyder or his proposed direction of the film should be mentioned in this Wikipedia article. Suggestions?-- 128.95.102.187 23:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
This is not a matter of "reporting non-information." It is relevant that it be mentioned that "Moore has made no comments regarding Zack Snyder's role as directors" or something along those lines, because it is an anticipated issue. Also, Moore has expressed his views on at least one screenplay and one director. In a section on "Moore and Gibbons' response", it is relevant whether or not Moore has responded to perhaps the most important aspect of the film: who directs it. ThuranX's frustration at Moore for rejecting the possibility of a film adaptation shouldn't impede on the article's purpose of conveying information on the "politics", so to speak, surrounding the film.-- 128.95.102.190 22:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify, Moore has commented on this project, and the comment has been included in the article. This should not be an issue any longer. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 19:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Here's a quote from CHUD.com:
Who is Alex Tse? Good question. The guy’s more or less a newbie – his only produced work was the pilot for the Showtime show Sucker Free City, for Spike Lee. I found a San Francisco Chronicle profile that describes him like this: “With baggy clothes, sullen face still unmarked by age and the occasional "hella" in his vocabulary, he looks and acts far younger than his 27 years.” [5]
The point of this is what? at best, this belongs on Tse's page, at worst, it's little more than the power of the pen as a bully pulpit, and non-notable. CHUD's not a reliable source for a character appraisal, and I'd wager that the SFC quote is taken out of context, and probably was used to 'introduce' Tse to the reader as the preamble to an interview. Non-notable. ThuranX 23:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Relax, ThuranX -- assume good faith. To the anonymous contributor, the information does not help define the film, but it could help define the screenwriter. I agree that it does not seem to warrant inclusion in the film article. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 23:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
On the one hand, I'd be fine with adding this to a wiki entry on Tse, but he's not relevant enough to have an entry (credits to one script). I think we should simply add a sentence about some critic' reticence towards his writing and then add footnote/references.-- 128.95.102.190 23:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Rorschach's Journal may be a viral marketing campaign. Ain't It Cool News mentions this possibility, and Network Solutions shows this. Not verifiable at this point, but something to watch for. Hurm. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 14:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
The news about Billy Crudup portraying Dr. Manhattan is only a rumor provided by CHUD.com, citing "a very reliable source". This is not valid information to include on Wikipedia because rumors are by nature unverifiable. We would need a more attributable source, such as from the studio itself, to confirm this news. Zack Snyder will be talking about Watchmen (perhaps casting for it as well) at the upcoming Comic Con, so we should look out for coverage of his presentation -- that would be more attributable than this rumor. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 17:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Several movie sites have reported ComingSoon.net to have the official synopsis for the film. The synopsis seems to be written in an official manner, though I don't know if it's questionable. What are others' thoughts? This could basically outline the film for readers who are not familiar with the graphic novel (God forbid). — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 18:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Not sure if this is worth including. Thoughts? Could be part of history, what with the campaign for The Dark Knight and the weird stuff going on with Cloverfield... — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 04:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Here's the official release of the poster if anyone wants to upload it. http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=news&id=11238 76.241.94.187 22:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
IGN has a fairly interesting interview with the director about how he's approaching the film, but I'm not sure what details, if any, are worth including in the encyclopedic sense. It seems worth mentioning the director's comparison of the War Room in Watchmen to Dr. Strangelove and NORAD. There's not really any other explicitly important details, though. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 13:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone heard anything about Carla Gugino possibly dropping out of the movie. She was recently taken off the cast list on imdb. Also she's shooting Righteous Kill until the end of October and Watchmen is about to start shooting next week. Does anybody know of any articles that relate to this issue. annoynmous 17:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
When we start a Marketing section, can I suggest moving the teaser poster to that section when it gets replaced by whatever new poster comes out? I think there's a Wizard citation that covers the teaser poster in pretty significant detail. Not often that a poster would get described like that, so I think it would warrant inclusion, especially in regard to the illustrator's involvement with the film. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 00:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
IESB.net says Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman were bought in to rewrite Tse's script. [7] I'm unsure of whether to add this: how reliable is IESB? Alientraveller 09:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
According to this, Jim Kakalios, the author of The Physics of Superheroes is serving as a consultant for the film. The blog is run by Dr. PZ Myers, Division of Science and Mathematics, at University of Minnesota, Morris -- seems reliable enough. Include? — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 18:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Kansas City Star reports on the usage of sculptures by four Kansas City area artists. Seems hard to fit anywhere right now, so I'm placing the headline here. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 15:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
According to this, there is a four-page article in the November 2007 issue of Starlog. If anyone can pick this up and include information from the article, that'd be great. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 18:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
... found on Rotten Tomatoes. The one with Nixon's "Four More Years" poster with Rorschach walking past is particularly good, as is all of the technical aspects of the set. Could go in Production, perhaps? María ( habla con migo) 18:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
In a previous edit of this page, I had added some links from the official Watchmen film blog in which Gibbons gives his views directly from the set. It was later removed to to redundancy, and personally I disagree with completely removing it. The section lacks anything referencing what's been seen from Zack Snyder's version of the film. With the exception of the last paragraph in that section, all of the quotes are taken from a time (2001-2002) when Zack wasn't even doing movies, let alone Watchmen.
Perhaps I could've integrated the quotes into the previous paragraph a little better, but I think the view is worth mentioning; it's the first time either of the two had an opinion from actually seeing something. Everything prior had just been script reading, and opinions on film in general. Below are the links to the entries, if anyone wants to use them.
http://rss.warnerbros.com/watchmen/2007/12/dave_gibbons_visits_the_set_pa_1.html http://rss.warnerbros.com/watchmen/2007/12/dave_gibbons_visits_the_set_pa.html
Blue Falcon ( talk) 16:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Should we mention in the info box that Moor refuses credit? Just an idea, not something serious, even though there's already an article about the entire situation. — Wildroot ( talk • contrib) - 20:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Carla Gugino Gets Sexy For Silk Spectre In ‘'Watchmen'’ -- J.D. ( talk) 20:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to start this topic so we get consensus as to how we want to organise the article in future. In July, Comic-Con is on and from then on it'll be a flood of set visits, interviews and news articles on the film's production and how it compares to the source material, reaction, controversy etc. The development section is a burden, so would there be willingness to shorten it or spin it off? I also have issues with the section on Moore and Gibbons' response. Basically, Moore was never interested, and Gibbons warmed to Snyder. It's almost the same as the V for Vendetta controversy, except Moore didn't outright savage the script, but was respectful as long as his name wasn't on the film. Alientraveller ( talk) 11:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Since Fox has chosen to backstab Gordon, I think my original statement is a little premature. Just how long will this article be? Alientraveller ( talk) 21:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if this information is relevant and can or should be included on the article? - http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=41860 - RVDDP2501 ( talk) 15:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I came across this PDF. I doubt the source is directly reliable, but maybe it'll help give insight about the lawsuit. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 19:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Why is this under the category of "Discussion of Future Comics"? Cubzrule ( talk) 08:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if this can be used anywhere in the article, so I won't act on it now, but just to let everyone know: There's a new frame from the film of Rorschach and a SWAT officer up on the official site. Maybe we could find a place for it in the article. Slusho42 ( talk) 03:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
There are some new pics out of the main 6 (excluding Manhattan) characters in costume. They can be found here: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35862 and on the film's official site. Don't know if we could incorporate them here, perhaps in production, or on the individual character pages possibly. Just letting everyone know they're out there. 24.166.186.123 ( talk) 21:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I added a line and link to pics already but user:alientraveller undid it saying it was 'useless'. He must be the Ozymandias of the page.... Vault-emort ( talk) 00:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Since I thought it was useful and in-synch with similar items included already (ie further down the page there are links to Manhattan concept art from a decade ago - is this linked to the manhattan page??) and you said it was useless, I just imagined u must be the smartest wikipedia editor on the cinder... ;) Vault-emort ( talk) 09:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Nothing more than a link to the original source material of the pics. I just tend to distrust WP refs such as http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=21587 somehow linked from this page which seem 2 have more ads or popups than verification of included 'facts'. I just believe most ppl would value a link to original source materials than second-hand virtual remora sites but I must be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vault-emort ( talk • contribs) 09:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Kewl - I guess i still need to fully understand copyright use in WP Vault-emort ( talk) 10:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Eric - I understand your points, but aren't they predicated mostly on expectation? What part of WP guidelines includes the right to in/ex clude data/images/links based on future predictions?
Anyway enjoy the film in a year ppl (I know I will) - and I'll go back to sports pages ;) Vault-emort ( talk) 10:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Wildroot (
talk)
19:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Headlines. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 12:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I didn't see it linked in the article yet, but the HD trailer has already been released by Apple here. María ( habla con migo) 12:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
There's a significant amount of buzz on the internets that because Alan Moore has completely distanced himself from the film going as far as not to even be compensated monetarily (I.e. paid) and that major liberties have been taken with costume designs and actors (as seen from production stills and the trailer) AND the overuse of CGI environment has led people who have knowledge of the graphic novel to call and participate in a boycott of the film. But I’m not too sure it should be mentioned. The vast majority who are indifferent to the comic are undaunted and won’t care. Most likely not the best time to mention it in the article. Perhaps after a few months (when it's done making it's millions) when everyone has forgotten the film and realize how poorly done it was - maybe then a paragraph could be added with hindsight of this obvious failure?
-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.151.174 ( talk) 00:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
The first time it's been used in a film since the Graduate? I distinctly remember it in Old School starring Will Ferrell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.32.29 ( talk) 19:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if it is worth mentioning the song from the trailer, but here are some citations: MTV 1, MTV 2, and LA Times. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 18:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Quote "Rorschach wears a mask with ink blots that morph to reflect his emotions:..." As far as I remember, the artist has explicitly stated that the mask designs are entirely random. Is the movie going to change this by using the mask as an insight into the character's mind? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.162.175 ( talk • contribs) 20:38, July 25, 2008
It's a couple of weeks old, but Hayter gives some interesting notes about his Watchmen script, and his enthusiasm for Zack Snyder. Here it is — Wildroot ( talk) 21:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I made an edit concerning the legal battle currently underway, with Fox saying it still owned some of the rights(see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7569770.stm). Alientraveler reverted this with a note saying it is "already covered". Can someone please tell me where this is covered? I searched the article and find no mention of it. Also, I saw nothing on the talk pages relating it to it either. JamesLikesBeer ( talk) 16:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
In August 1986, producer Lawrence Gordon acquired film rights to Watchmen for 20th Century Fox.
This is inconsistent with the recent legal documents. Fox bought the rights, not Gordon, and he was either President of Fox or a producer during this time. But the actual purchase was between Fox and DC.
Gordon and Silver set up the project at Warner Bros.
This needs clarification also, as the legal documents do not cite Warner Bros being involved in the production before 1996. The documents make it quite clear that Largo/Gordon/Golar were developing the property independently. Whether Silver was working for Warners at the time is irrelevant, as he was bought out of the project in 1991-'92. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghostofdannykaye ( talk • contribs) 17:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
IMDb members have shredded their non-disclosure agreements, and Rich Johnson claims Snyder has filmed multiple endings, including the one with the squid from the book, and another taken from Hayter's script. Now naturally this is a rumour as IMDb is a forum, but I have found interesting opinions should the movie use the altered ending (if it even exists). Here, Kevin Smith declares he loves both endings and thinks the new one is more character based, while NY Mag prefers it and compares it to The Dark Knight. /Film has spoken to some fans and they feel it's thematically ok. We got good cites for eventual use if this is true / used. Alientraveller ( talk) 20:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
The article contradicts itself in regards to Moore's reaction. First it reads: When 20th Century Fox acquired rights to the novel, the comic book's writer Alan Moore was excited about the film adaptation. In a 1987 edition of Comics Interview, he revealed Sam Hamm, who was attached to write, "came to Northampton and had lunch with me – and I've got complete faith in him. I believe that he will try his best to make the film as faithful to the experience of reading Watchmen as he can."
Then in the next paragraph: Moore had opposed the adaptation of Watchmen from the beginning,...
The whole section needs clarification. -- Jeiki Rebirth ( talk) 05:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Article says "Malin Akerman as Laurie Juspeczyk / Silk Spectre". However, in the comic "Silk Spectre" is "Silk Spectre II's" mother. Laurie is Silk Spectre II, Sally is Silk Spectre I. So the article should say "Silk Spectre II" or what? Or they renamed the character? I just read the comic, this is contradictionary. -- Ysangkok ( talk) 20:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
http://www.thenewfrontiersman.net/ its worth mentioning —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.182.228.205 ( talk) 17:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
even if development hell is an industry term, it's still slang. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.161.122.160 ( talk • contribs)
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)
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)
In the Reviews section the article cited from here [10] 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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
[1]Watchmen has been established to be a joint British and American production [2] and as such had its world Premier in London, United Kingdom.
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)
"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 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)
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)
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)
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." [11]
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." [12]
LA Times [13]
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)." [14]
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." [15]
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." [16] Briguy7783 ( talk) 16:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Articles from VFXWorld that could be used. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 17:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
The terms "Nite Owl II" and "Silk Spectre II" should not be used in the article, because those are not the character's proper names. Particularly watch out in the cast list for this. WesleyDodds ( talk) 09:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Reference 67 (Ozymandias' costume) needs updating to URL http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=9647 - reference scheme is *not* straight forward or I'd have updated it myself! 203.56.94.19 ( talk) 01:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
I believe there are several imprecisions in the characters' description. To give a single example: are we sure that, *in the film*, all that material is given about Hooded Justice (his real name, his sexual tendencies etc.)? If not, their place is not here. Goochelaar ( talk) 00:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
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
Just curious, for the paragraph listing the box office stats, and rankings, do you think we should cut some of these? I think some of them are so highly specialized, or so low ranking, as to be irrelevant.
"Thanks to its opening weekend, Watchmen currently sits fourth in all time openings for the month of March,[135] as well as the fifth highest grossing weekend for the spring season, which is defined by the first Friday in March through to the first Thursday in the month of May.[136] It is the sixth largest opening for an R-rated film in North American history,[137] and is currently the highest grossing R-rated film of 2009.[138] On the North American box office, Watchmen currently sits as the thirteenth highest grossing film based on a DC Comics comic book,[139] and the fourth highest grossing film of 2009.[140]"
Most of these were more significant early into 2009, but others films have pushed the film down in some of these (already extremely specific) categories. I mean the highest grossing weekend for the spring season would be impressive, as would the fifth highest grossing weekend of all time, but is the fifth highest grossing weekend for the spring season really that interesting a statistic? I definitely think Highest grossing R-rated film of 2009 is valid, but do others agree that some of these don't really mean anything any more? I wouldn't say I know where the line should be drawn, or if there's any precedent, but curious for a consensus. Briguy7783 ( talk) 17:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
American Cinematographer published an article about Watchmen, which is available online. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 16:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
That looked a lot like Lee Iaccoca in the film, was it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokem ( talk • contribs) 15:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I deleted the spacing in the {{ main}} just because it was unnecessary. I already explained why I removed the bluelink: Rorschash has been established as a character, and has already been bluelinked before (in the article (above)). 68.148.149.184 ( talk) 05:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Please direct me to the MOS section or page which determines your style of formatting for ==Cast==. Firstly, I wanted to put the section into a table. And what does D.M. and W.H. mean in your userbox about The Office?
You did not look at my edit summary: I put {{ who}} beside request, meaning: "Did Silk Spectre ask Manhattan to intervene or did Manhattan refuse to let Silk Spectre intervene?" I will now proceed to revert your bad faith revert. 68.148.149.184 ( talk) 23:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
All you have to do is to look at other articles about films in order to see that the formatting you proposed is not in line with the accepted norm.
Many films cast sections are infact written in table, if they even have a cast section (because otherwise, the title of the section is actually the title of the table). 68.148.149.184 ( talk) 00:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The quotes that have been reverted as they now stand does the article no good:
I had integreated the quotes into the article but they have been reverted. If you want to discuss the change please do so. For the first quote, I had already stated the reason behind the change, and thus it was you, Collectonian, yourresponsibility to start the discussion. 68.148.149.184 ( talk) 05:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to put this article up for a GA nomination tomorrow - if anyone's got a problem with it state below or I'll just go for it. -- Harish ( Talk) - 17:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Took some risks (even if I didn't edit that much) and nominated it. igordebraga ≠ 01:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
? Some of the sections seem a little trivial and irrelevant, I think the Tales of the Black Freighter infobox is not needed. Reviews seems a little.... ehhhh. ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 05:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Removed the infobox, transferred parts of Music to Soundtrack, but make yourself clearer! igordebraga ≠ 23:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think this is a remotely good review to be honest. There's no explaining why things are not needed, or why some of the sections seem "a little trivial and irrelevant" let alone which sections, and you might find it better to review the article in a more typical format. -- Harish ( Talk) - 16:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Lots of information, but it could stand some serious polishing.
Hello. I was absolutely certain there would be a "Differences from the graphic novel" section in this article, like the ones in many other articles about films based on novels. I think the article should at least mention the difference between the endings (describing both endings in comparison and not just the film's ending), so maybe someone's willing to at least make a section for that major difference? Thanks in advance... Kreachure ( talk) 18:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree that -- ESPECIALLY on this page -- a differences section would be very helpful. One would get the impression reading this page that the film was incredibly faithful to the book. The 'Reviews' section particularly emphasises this point of view. I realise that the review section is probably accurately reporting the opinions of the reviewers, but the overall impression is that the comic was virtually used as a storyboard and that very few lines of dialogue were added to or altered. This does seem false, given that numerous scenes and events were added, dialogue was chopped and changed, and that camera shots/sequences usually differed from the book. One needs to watch about 10-15mins of the movie before they can even see the first panel of the book, and even then Rorschach's monologue is shifted to the book's first silent scene. Off-hand, I can't even think of a single scene that accurately follows the book's 'storyboards,' let alone the entire movie. And the addition of all that Hostel-style violence or the LITERAL nuclear countdown clock can hardly be called 'suffocatingly faithful.' I mean, what was all that Nixon stuff? Okay, Nixon was in both the book and the film, but that's about where the similarities stop. The backgrounds, the dialogue, the camera angles, all of that is different. Now I'll stop with the concrete examples here, because I'm virtually writing the section which I should not be doing on the 'discussion' page, but hopefully these few examples will bolster the argument for to someone actually write a differences section. I'd do it myself, but I don't want to subject myself to that awful movie again even for wikipedia's sake. Someone who loves the movie should do it, but please be accurate.-- 203.45.146.36 ( talk) 05:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed on the pages for RocknRolla, Goodfellas and Casino, it mentions which actors provided Narration for the film, so I've added Jackie Earle Haley and Billy Crudup under 'Narrated by', does anyone recall other characters narrating the film? ( Dignam ( talk) 06:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC))
Manhattan when he first goes to Mars and recalls his life and how he went from human to Dr. Manhattan. I'm assuming that would make him a narrator in part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.29.32.136 ( talk) 21:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
But isn't Crudup Manhattan?-- 203.45.146.36 ( talk) 06:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
The article makes mention a of '64-rong choir.' Does anyone know what this is? A search turns up this page only. Is it a typo? Postdarwin ( talk) 01:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I just watched the Director's Cut on DVD and I can't spot all of the additions from the theatrical release; hopefully someone will be able to assemble a list of differences between the two. Also, the article (as of this writing) still refers to the home video release in future-tense. 173.50.230.226 ( talk) 01:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
WTF? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.71.40 ( talk) 13:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I really liked the movie, and I realized there are quite a few key events in history that are portrayed in it, especially during the montage to 'The Times They Are A-Changin' right in the beginning. Maybe a selection of good trivia points is in order?
One that I only realized when I rented the DVD was during Sally Jupiter's retirement party looking almost exactly like Da Vinci's The Last Supper. Creepy. Other things i remember offhand were that monk who burned himself to death at the crossroads in Saigon, Silhouette kissing that girl during V-J celebrations exactly like the famous picture of that sailor, the hippie putting the flower into the barrel of the gun at that Pentagon protest (i think) and of course JFK's assassination by the Comedian. A mention of that smiley face crater on Mars might be cool too. Squiggle ( talk) 16:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Easy there Darren. Those scenes were integral to the background of the story, and that they paralell true events add some signifigance. Squiggle has a valid argument. Jersey John ( talk) 16:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
There is no reason for five paragraphs about Alan Moore's discontent with the medium of film and his disappointment with ALL HIS OTHER MOVIES in this entry.
It's off topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.187.124 ( talk) 01:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Personally I think it's worthy of a mention, Moore has a reputation for being unreasonably pissy about any derivative work based on his originals. Thing is, I don't see him refusing the sales royalties he got for the massive increase in the "Watchmen" graphic novel sales it experienced when this movie was officially announced, and I don't see him asking for the renewed attention in his works (also attributable to this movie) to cease. No movie director should ever "hope" to get his approval - the guy might write awesome, but he's an absolute shitcunt otherwise. 124.148.75.43 ( talk) 01:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
False -- just because someone hates their work being turned into garbage, it doesn't mean they should shoot themselves in the foot. If you lose your wife because of some slack industrial safety standards, will you turn down compensation? And, if you don't, would you be a 'shitcunt'? Moore has lost something very important to him here (Watchmen's legacy), but that's no reason he shouldn't take whatever he can get out of the awful affair.
Now, to my understanding, Moore declined film royalties as a statement, not because he doesn't want to get something out of the disaster. He hopes that by "spitting venom" all over the film people won't go to see it and it will fall into obscurity (thus helping to preserve the book's legacy -- and, more importantly, preserve the experience one is meant to have when reading the book). I don't know how effective this 'statement' has been, but why is he a 'shitcunt' for wanting a silver lining in some of the few places he thinks he can get it?-- 203.45.146.36 ( talk) 04:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Umm, who added this, and why? She's not a critic, the summary of her critique is laughable, and it occurred two-plus years after the release of the movie. One word—unnecessary. 174.99.62.175 ( talk) 03:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Exactly half (167) of the 334 words describing Rohrschach's character devoted to precise details of his unmasked appearances? Really? Removing. PacificBoy 20:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I spent a fair amount of time making what I thought was a pretty solid Revision of the Plot section at 03:10, 15 December 2009, but it has been wholly reverted. I corrected substandard usage, clarified clunky writing, added some transitions to improve flow, removed redundant words and sentences, and rewrote some completely erroneous material (such as suicides and arrests among the Minutemen, and Rorshach warning Veidt). If Darren or anyone else can explain this, I would like to hear it. Edgehawk ( talk) 04:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
The introduction to this wikiarticle does not have any citations. This is in clear violation of WP:LEADCITE, which states:
The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. Contentious material about living persons must be cited every time, regardless of the level of generality. [Emphasis added.]
This is especially so in the case of this wikiarticle’s lede given that it presents a tremendous level of detail and specificity (e.g., the “mired in development hell” background; budget information; box office data; etc.) and is not written at the “greater level of generality than the body” of which the above statement of policy speaks. Therefore, it is not sufficient to say that the reader can locate the verifiable references/ citations elsewhere in the body of the wikiarticle. To present such a detailed and specific lede, without appropriate, verifiable references/citations, violates WP:LEADCITE and, more importantly, WP:V. Not providing citations is not editing against consensus, it is editing against policy, namely WP:LEADCITE and WP:V.
The policies at WP:LEADCITE and WP:V do not make exceptions for WikiProject Films. Moreover, the lead section guidelines at WikiProject Films does not attempt to carve out such an exception and, in fact, says nothing about requiring less references/citations than WP:LEADCITE and WP:V dictate. Thus, one can draw the inference that the maintainers of the WikiProject Films style guide understand that the policies at WP:LEADCITE and WP:V must prevail.
I suggest either providing appropriate citations in the lede, or paring the lede down so that it contains less detailed specificity and is written at a “greater level of generality than the body.” Thanks! — Spike Toronto 00:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Since the section being tagged is at the very top of the article, and seems therefore to create confusion by the placement of {{ Unreferenced section}} at the top of the section — which is also the top of the article — would it be preferable instead to place {{ Citation needed}} tags at the end of the lines that are running afoul of WP:LEADCITE and WP:V?
Again, I have no problem finding the cites and duping them. But, that is a labour-intensive task and I do not want another editor possessed of a belief that WP:LEADCITE and WP:V do not apply, to come along afterwards and revert it. So, what I am trying to achieve here is some sort of editors agreement amongst us that that will not happen, that one’s labour will not be for naught. I also don’t want an edit war over the addition of policy-compliant citations. This is a valid point since, so far, the mere placing of the tag has twice been reverted, reverts which were themselves in violation of policy since correctly placed, policy compliant, maintenance tags cannot be deleted from articles until the issues to which they pertain have been resolved (i.e., the inclusion of the requisite verifiable citations). One should, therefore, understand my hesitation to perform the labour-intensive task involved when another editor is (possibly) sitting there with his/her mouse poised over the Undo button. Thanks Darren for your input! — Spike Toronto 18:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Vigilantes (used several times in this article) seems like the wrong word. From the film it appeared many of them worked with the approval of the government and when the approval was withdrawn retired. Masked Heroes would be more accurate. But if any are strongly in favor of keeping vigilante let me know and I won't make the change. Nitpyck ( talk) 23:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Isn't this a pre-apocalyptic film? - the bombs go off at the end - and even then they only kill a tiny proportion of the population in an effort to prevent an apocalypse. Nitpyck ( talk) 06:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Development of Watchmen only lacks some things with the sourcing to pass. Can anyone help me, specially because that article is what the former Development section of this article used to be? igordebraga ≠ 03:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
This doesn't seem very 'encyclopedic':
65.68.136.227 ( talk) 19:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I've moved the bulk of the text from the Music section here. It was tagged for needing sourcing since September 2010. Please feel free to reincorporate into the article with appropriate refs! Doniago ( talk) 15:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Music
| ||
---|---|---|
The film uses a mix of popular songs from a variety of 1960s artists such as Bob Dylan, Leonard Cohen, Jimi Hendrix, Simon and Garfunkel, and Janis Joplin, many of which were songs referenced in the original graphic novel. It also includes a remake of Bob Dylan's classic " Desolation Row" by rock band My Chemical Romance. Richard Wagner's famous " Ride of the Valkyries" appears in a Vietnam flashback sequence, referencing both the Under the Hood mention in the graphic novel and a similar sequence from Francis Ford Coppola's Apocalypse Now using the same music. original research? An arrangement of Philip Glass's score for the film Koyaanisqatsi was used during the Dr. Manhattan origin sequence, and was also used for some of the trailers prior to the film's release. An excerpt from Glass's opera Satyagraha was used as well. The Requiem Mass in D minor (K. 626) by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart can be heard near the end of the film. Aside from the soundtrack, an original score was composed by Tyler Bates, who previously worked with Snyder on 300. Separate soundtrack and original score albums were released around the time of the film's opening. |
Removed the following lines:
Nowhere in the movie are any of these things mentioned. In the "Behind the Hood" segment on the Ultimate Edition Blu-ray, Hollis Mason reveals that Hooded Justice vanished when HUAC demanded to know his true identity.
PainMan ( talk) 00:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
How come there is no mention of the actor who played Dr. Malcolm Long, who treated Rosasch? What is the actor's name? -- 67.86.110.9 ( talk) 16:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)Veryverser
From the article:
I don't recall how it was handled in the film (and the "Wright" reference is not properly cited, making the claim unverifiable), but a U.S. President cannot under law be "repeatedly reelected" for four terms without a repeal of the 22nd Amendment by Congress or following the assumption of emergency powers by the President himself. In the comic, that's exactly what happened: Nixon was still President because he had enacted emergency powers in the 1970s. I don't recall the film deviating that strongly from the original. Can someone fact check this and fix as necessary? 12.233.146.130 ( talk) 00:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
"yet staying true"?? This is speculation and heavily POV 24.33.28.52 15:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Are you presenting this as evidence of veracity or something? The phrase "staying true" will be POV regardless. 24.33.28.52 17:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Until valid citations are provided for the casting of John Cusack, Daniel Craig, and Sigourney Weaver, these names will be removed until further notice. The sources of the rumors seem to be [1] (see Scoop 11, dated back to 2004) and [2] (dated back to 2003). Until then, confirmations such as the director will be allowed. Erik 21:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Is there any evidence of an expected release date? IMDb shows it's still in scripting phase, so 2007 or 2008 seems likely. -- SidP 00:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how to quote the url properly... Sorry for the all the stupid edits, but I don't know the right quoting method. The problem is wikipedia doesn't like the | in the url... stupid ew.-- Aranc23 14:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I've worked out the chronology of the Watchmen project using a variety of sources to tie everything together in a kind of a timeline. The resulting section is obviously large and may qualify for its own article, taking up so much space. I'm not sure what the qualifications are for breaking down an article into multiple articles.
In addition, I took the liberty of removing a previous edit about Moore supporting Hayter's script. The reason I did this was that in my going through all the Watchmen sources, Moore had a lot of interesting things to say about why the comic book could not be adapted to the film. This could warrant its own section, as it seems important to have the writer's take on the adaptation. I will see if I can do this. Any thoughts on this?
Feel free to go through what I've added and make any contributive edits. If you feel that certain parts can be taken out, feel free to discuss with me here. -- Erik 20:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Just a brief notice here to acknowledge's Erikster's great hard work revising the entire article. ThuranX 22:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)There was a sentence at the end of the Production section about tests done of Dr. Manhattan. I reviewed the citation, which didn't give any more detail than that, so it seems rather vague for inclusion, or to surmise what the director could be referring to. I've removed it so hopefully the matter is clarified (and more detailed) in a future citation. — Erik ( talk • contrib • review) - 14:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
It's odd and its offhand, but in an interview Darren Aronofsky mentioned that David Bowie had told him he was developing a Watchmen rock opera [3]. Is there any way/cause for this to be mentioned? -- InShaneee 08:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
It sits perfectly in the Watchmen article, and this is about the film. WikiNew 13:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Which citation indicates that the film will come out in late 2008? I only see mention of the release date in the lead paragraph, but nowhere in the article. — Erik ( talk • contrib • review) - 17:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
A rather easy assumption considering Snyder will wrap filming this year. WikiNew 17:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
A stupid assumption. It assumes that it'll be completed with a minimum of post-production. Anyway, various interviews have said 2009-- Isocyanide 05:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The article might be a bit misleading. It says the Alex Tse script threw out the contemporary setting and restored the 1986setting. As I recall, Alex Tse's script was modern, complete with islamic terrorists. Snyder has said that he wants watchmen in it's original time period, but I don't think Tse's scripts have had anything to do with that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.238.216.161 ( talk) 03:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
Here's a podcast where Snyder is supposed to mention information about pre-production for Watchmen. Can anyone listen to the podcast and see if there's any useful information to be extracted? — Erik ( talk • contrib • review) - 14:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
How does one play it? The download icon appears and then nothing happens. Alientraveller 14:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
It was focused on 300 ( Peter Jackson liked it) and the interviewers wanting him to handle every fictional property including an R-rated Star Wars, but Snyder did talk about budgets for Watchmen. He's having difficulties, Warners having " amnesia about 300 ever coming out" and the actors wanting "pay day" with a film they percieve to be like X-Men when it's an art-film. He also gave a thumbs up to a fan's idea of Will Wheaton as Nite Owl and took the mick out of Arnold Schwarzneggar playing Dr. Manhattan (I think it was him, I was just giggling). He also discussed a little bit on adapting the novel which I didn't find too interesting. For anyone wanting to dig up more, he starts discussing Watchmen around the middle of the broadcast. Alientraveller 15:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)I added info to the casting section about AICN's casting info that was published today. If this is inappropriate, all apologies, it seems relevant though even if they don't end up being cast. Fullmetaljacuzzi 21:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)If Snyder's project fails, which I think it's more likely to not, this and the budget dispute can be good additions. Alientraveller 17:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
[4] has news that KR has officially said no. However, this is his fan club site, and it's the webmaster's claim of an email. Hopefully, we'll get a better source soon on this. ThuranX 11:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Actor Jude Law is a fan of the Watchmen and even has a tattoo of Rorshach. He has expressed great interest in portraying Rorshach if a film of Watchmen is ever made (although he has stated he would probably end up playing Ozymandias instead). NemFX 01:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
For those few instances (Cruise, Perlman), where things went beyond wishings, can we find dates to better put the meeting times into context? I know we're going off interviews which do NOT overtly reveal the dates, but even if we can put a year or season (Cruise's sounds like it was late 2006, as the rumors started in jan 2007, for example), then we can better contextualize how every stage of this process has been slower than pouring frozen molasses uphill both ways in the rain. Or whatever. ThuranX 22:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
As of now, Alan Moore has said nothing about the fact that Zack Snyder is slated to direct the film (though he has commented on the script, etc.). That's to the best of my current knowledge. I think that's quite significant. If and when Moore does comment on Snyder's direction of the film, I suspect he won't have much friendly to say of the director of 300. While that is just my own personal speculation, I do think the fact that Moore hasn't made any statements about Snyder or his proposed direction of the film should be mentioned in this Wikipedia article. Suggestions?-- 128.95.102.187 23:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
This is not a matter of "reporting non-information." It is relevant that it be mentioned that "Moore has made no comments regarding Zack Snyder's role as directors" or something along those lines, because it is an anticipated issue. Also, Moore has expressed his views on at least one screenplay and one director. In a section on "Moore and Gibbons' response", it is relevant whether or not Moore has responded to perhaps the most important aspect of the film: who directs it. ThuranX's frustration at Moore for rejecting the possibility of a film adaptation shouldn't impede on the article's purpose of conveying information on the "politics", so to speak, surrounding the film.-- 128.95.102.190 22:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify, Moore has commented on this project, and the comment has been included in the article. This should not be an issue any longer. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 19:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Here's a quote from CHUD.com:
Who is Alex Tse? Good question. The guy’s more or less a newbie – his only produced work was the pilot for the Showtime show Sucker Free City, for Spike Lee. I found a San Francisco Chronicle profile that describes him like this: “With baggy clothes, sullen face still unmarked by age and the occasional "hella" in his vocabulary, he looks and acts far younger than his 27 years.” [5]
The point of this is what? at best, this belongs on Tse's page, at worst, it's little more than the power of the pen as a bully pulpit, and non-notable. CHUD's not a reliable source for a character appraisal, and I'd wager that the SFC quote is taken out of context, and probably was used to 'introduce' Tse to the reader as the preamble to an interview. Non-notable. ThuranX 23:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Relax, ThuranX -- assume good faith. To the anonymous contributor, the information does not help define the film, but it could help define the screenwriter. I agree that it does not seem to warrant inclusion in the film article. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 23:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
On the one hand, I'd be fine with adding this to a wiki entry on Tse, but he's not relevant enough to have an entry (credits to one script). I think we should simply add a sentence about some critic' reticence towards his writing and then add footnote/references.-- 128.95.102.190 23:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Rorschach's Journal may be a viral marketing campaign. Ain't It Cool News mentions this possibility, and Network Solutions shows this. Not verifiable at this point, but something to watch for. Hurm. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 14:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
The news about Billy Crudup portraying Dr. Manhattan is only a rumor provided by CHUD.com, citing "a very reliable source". This is not valid information to include on Wikipedia because rumors are by nature unverifiable. We would need a more attributable source, such as from the studio itself, to confirm this news. Zack Snyder will be talking about Watchmen (perhaps casting for it as well) at the upcoming Comic Con, so we should look out for coverage of his presentation -- that would be more attributable than this rumor. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 17:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Several movie sites have reported ComingSoon.net to have the official synopsis for the film. The synopsis seems to be written in an official manner, though I don't know if it's questionable. What are others' thoughts? This could basically outline the film for readers who are not familiar with the graphic novel (God forbid). — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 18:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Not sure if this is worth including. Thoughts? Could be part of history, what with the campaign for The Dark Knight and the weird stuff going on with Cloverfield... — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 04:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Here's the official release of the poster if anyone wants to upload it. http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=news&id=11238 76.241.94.187 22:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
IGN has a fairly interesting interview with the director about how he's approaching the film, but I'm not sure what details, if any, are worth including in the encyclopedic sense. It seems worth mentioning the director's comparison of the War Room in Watchmen to Dr. Strangelove and NORAD. There's not really any other explicitly important details, though. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 13:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone heard anything about Carla Gugino possibly dropping out of the movie. She was recently taken off the cast list on imdb. Also she's shooting Righteous Kill until the end of October and Watchmen is about to start shooting next week. Does anybody know of any articles that relate to this issue. annoynmous 17:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
When we start a Marketing section, can I suggest moving the teaser poster to that section when it gets replaced by whatever new poster comes out? I think there's a Wizard citation that covers the teaser poster in pretty significant detail. Not often that a poster would get described like that, so I think it would warrant inclusion, especially in regard to the illustrator's involvement with the film. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 00:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
IESB.net says Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman were bought in to rewrite Tse's script. [7] I'm unsure of whether to add this: how reliable is IESB? Alientraveller 09:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
According to this, Jim Kakalios, the author of The Physics of Superheroes is serving as a consultant for the film. The blog is run by Dr. PZ Myers, Division of Science and Mathematics, at University of Minnesota, Morris -- seems reliable enough. Include? — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 18:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Kansas City Star reports on the usage of sculptures by four Kansas City area artists. Seems hard to fit anywhere right now, so I'm placing the headline here. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 15:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
According to this, there is a four-page article in the November 2007 issue of Starlog. If anyone can pick this up and include information from the article, that'd be great. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 18:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
... found on Rotten Tomatoes. The one with Nixon's "Four More Years" poster with Rorschach walking past is particularly good, as is all of the technical aspects of the set. Could go in Production, perhaps? María ( habla con migo) 18:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
In a previous edit of this page, I had added some links from the official Watchmen film blog in which Gibbons gives his views directly from the set. It was later removed to to redundancy, and personally I disagree with completely removing it. The section lacks anything referencing what's been seen from Zack Snyder's version of the film. With the exception of the last paragraph in that section, all of the quotes are taken from a time (2001-2002) when Zack wasn't even doing movies, let alone Watchmen.
Perhaps I could've integrated the quotes into the previous paragraph a little better, but I think the view is worth mentioning; it's the first time either of the two had an opinion from actually seeing something. Everything prior had just been script reading, and opinions on film in general. Below are the links to the entries, if anyone wants to use them.
http://rss.warnerbros.com/watchmen/2007/12/dave_gibbons_visits_the_set_pa_1.html http://rss.warnerbros.com/watchmen/2007/12/dave_gibbons_visits_the_set_pa.html
Blue Falcon ( talk) 16:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Should we mention in the info box that Moor refuses credit? Just an idea, not something serious, even though there's already an article about the entire situation. — Wildroot ( talk • contrib) - 20:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Carla Gugino Gets Sexy For Silk Spectre In ‘'Watchmen'’ -- J.D. ( talk) 20:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to start this topic so we get consensus as to how we want to organise the article in future. In July, Comic-Con is on and from then on it'll be a flood of set visits, interviews and news articles on the film's production and how it compares to the source material, reaction, controversy etc. The development section is a burden, so would there be willingness to shorten it or spin it off? I also have issues with the section on Moore and Gibbons' response. Basically, Moore was never interested, and Gibbons warmed to Snyder. It's almost the same as the V for Vendetta controversy, except Moore didn't outright savage the script, but was respectful as long as his name wasn't on the film. Alientraveller ( talk) 11:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Since Fox has chosen to backstab Gordon, I think my original statement is a little premature. Just how long will this article be? Alientraveller ( talk) 21:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if this information is relevant and can or should be included on the article? - http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=41860 - RVDDP2501 ( talk) 15:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I came across this PDF. I doubt the source is directly reliable, but maybe it'll help give insight about the lawsuit. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 19:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Why is this under the category of "Discussion of Future Comics"? Cubzrule ( talk) 08:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if this can be used anywhere in the article, so I won't act on it now, but just to let everyone know: There's a new frame from the film of Rorschach and a SWAT officer up on the official site. Maybe we could find a place for it in the article. Slusho42 ( talk) 03:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
There are some new pics out of the main 6 (excluding Manhattan) characters in costume. They can be found here: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35862 and on the film's official site. Don't know if we could incorporate them here, perhaps in production, or on the individual character pages possibly. Just letting everyone know they're out there. 24.166.186.123 ( talk) 21:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I added a line and link to pics already but user:alientraveller undid it saying it was 'useless'. He must be the Ozymandias of the page.... Vault-emort ( talk) 00:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Since I thought it was useful and in-synch with similar items included already (ie further down the page there are links to Manhattan concept art from a decade ago - is this linked to the manhattan page??) and you said it was useless, I just imagined u must be the smartest wikipedia editor on the cinder... ;) Vault-emort ( talk) 09:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Nothing more than a link to the original source material of the pics. I just tend to distrust WP refs such as http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=21587 somehow linked from this page which seem 2 have more ads or popups than verification of included 'facts'. I just believe most ppl would value a link to original source materials than second-hand virtual remora sites but I must be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vault-emort ( talk • contribs) 09:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Kewl - I guess i still need to fully understand copyright use in WP Vault-emort ( talk) 10:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Eric - I understand your points, but aren't they predicated mostly on expectation? What part of WP guidelines includes the right to in/ex clude data/images/links based on future predictions?
Anyway enjoy the film in a year ppl (I know I will) - and I'll go back to sports pages ;) Vault-emort ( talk) 10:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Wildroot (
talk)
19:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Headlines. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 12:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I didn't see it linked in the article yet, but the HD trailer has already been released by Apple here. María ( habla con migo) 12:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
There's a significant amount of buzz on the internets that because Alan Moore has completely distanced himself from the film going as far as not to even be compensated monetarily (I.e. paid) and that major liberties have been taken with costume designs and actors (as seen from production stills and the trailer) AND the overuse of CGI environment has led people who have knowledge of the graphic novel to call and participate in a boycott of the film. But I’m not too sure it should be mentioned. The vast majority who are indifferent to the comic are undaunted and won’t care. Most likely not the best time to mention it in the article. Perhaps after a few months (when it's done making it's millions) when everyone has forgotten the film and realize how poorly done it was - maybe then a paragraph could be added with hindsight of this obvious failure?
-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.151.174 ( talk) 00:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
The first time it's been used in a film since the Graduate? I distinctly remember it in Old School starring Will Ferrell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.32.29 ( talk) 19:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if it is worth mentioning the song from the trailer, but here are some citations: MTV 1, MTV 2, and LA Times. — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 18:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Quote "Rorschach wears a mask with ink blots that morph to reflect his emotions:..." As far as I remember, the artist has explicitly stated that the mask designs are entirely random. Is the movie going to change this by using the mask as an insight into the character's mind? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.162.175 ( talk • contribs) 20:38, July 25, 2008
It's a couple of weeks old, but Hayter gives some interesting notes about his Watchmen script, and his enthusiasm for Zack Snyder. Here it is — Wildroot ( talk) 21:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I made an edit concerning the legal battle currently underway, with Fox saying it still owned some of the rights(see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7569770.stm). Alientraveler reverted this with a note saying it is "already covered". Can someone please tell me where this is covered? I searched the article and find no mention of it. Also, I saw nothing on the talk pages relating it to it either. JamesLikesBeer ( talk) 16:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
In August 1986, producer Lawrence Gordon acquired film rights to Watchmen for 20th Century Fox.
This is inconsistent with the recent legal documents. Fox bought the rights, not Gordon, and he was either President of Fox or a producer during this time. But the actual purchase was between Fox and DC.
Gordon and Silver set up the project at Warner Bros.
This needs clarification also, as the legal documents do not cite Warner Bros being involved in the production before 1996. The documents make it quite clear that Largo/Gordon/Golar were developing the property independently. Whether Silver was working for Warners at the time is irrelevant, as he was bought out of the project in 1991-'92. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghostofdannykaye ( talk • contribs) 17:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
IMDb members have shredded their non-disclosure agreements, and Rich Johnson claims Snyder has filmed multiple endings, including the one with the squid from the book, and another taken from Hayter's script. Now naturally this is a rumour as IMDb is a forum, but I have found interesting opinions should the movie use the altered ending (if it even exists). Here, Kevin Smith declares he loves both endings and thinks the new one is more character based, while NY Mag prefers it and compares it to The Dark Knight. /Film has spoken to some fans and they feel it's thematically ok. We got good cites for eventual use if this is true / used. Alientraveller ( talk) 20:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
The article contradicts itself in regards to Moore's reaction. First it reads: When 20th Century Fox acquired rights to the novel, the comic book's writer Alan Moore was excited about the film adaptation. In a 1987 edition of Comics Interview, he revealed Sam Hamm, who was attached to write, "came to Northampton and had lunch with me – and I've got complete faith in him. I believe that he will try his best to make the film as faithful to the experience of reading Watchmen as he can."
Then in the next paragraph: Moore had opposed the adaptation of Watchmen from the beginning,...
The whole section needs clarification. -- Jeiki Rebirth ( talk) 05:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Article says "Malin Akerman as Laurie Juspeczyk / Silk Spectre". However, in the comic "Silk Spectre" is "Silk Spectre II's" mother. Laurie is Silk Spectre II, Sally is Silk Spectre I. So the article should say "Silk Spectre II" or what? Or they renamed the character? I just read the comic, this is contradictionary. -- Ysangkok ( talk) 20:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
http://www.thenewfrontiersman.net/ its worth mentioning —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.182.228.205 ( talk) 17:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
even if development hell is an industry term, it's still slang. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.161.122.160 ( talk • contribs)
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)
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)
In the Reviews section the article cited from here [10] 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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
[1]Watchmen has been established to be a joint British and American production [2] and as such had its world Premier in London, United Kingdom.
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)
"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 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)
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)
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)
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." [11]
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." [12]
LA Times [13]
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)." [14]
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." [15]
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." [16] Briguy7783 ( talk) 16:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Articles from VFXWorld that could be used. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 17:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
The terms "Nite Owl II" and "Silk Spectre II" should not be used in the article, because those are not the character's proper names. Particularly watch out in the cast list for this. WesleyDodds ( talk) 09:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Reference 67 (Ozymandias' costume) needs updating to URL http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=9647 - reference scheme is *not* straight forward or I'd have updated it myself! 203.56.94.19 ( talk) 01:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
I believe there are several imprecisions in the characters' description. To give a single example: are we sure that, *in the film*, all that material is given about Hooded Justice (his real name, his sexual tendencies etc.)? If not, their place is not here. Goochelaar ( talk) 00:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
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
Just curious, for the paragraph listing the box office stats, and rankings, do you think we should cut some of these? I think some of them are so highly specialized, or so low ranking, as to be irrelevant.
"Thanks to its opening weekend, Watchmen currently sits fourth in all time openings for the month of March,[135] as well as the fifth highest grossing weekend for the spring season, which is defined by the first Friday in March through to the first Thursday in the month of May.[136] It is the sixth largest opening for an R-rated film in North American history,[137] and is currently the highest grossing R-rated film of 2009.[138] On the North American box office, Watchmen currently sits as the thirteenth highest grossing film based on a DC Comics comic book,[139] and the fourth highest grossing film of 2009.[140]"
Most of these were more significant early into 2009, but others films have pushed the film down in some of these (already extremely specific) categories. I mean the highest grossing weekend for the spring season would be impressive, as would the fifth highest grossing weekend of all time, but is the fifth highest grossing weekend for the spring season really that interesting a statistic? I definitely think Highest grossing R-rated film of 2009 is valid, but do others agree that some of these don't really mean anything any more? I wouldn't say I know where the line should be drawn, or if there's any precedent, but curious for a consensus. Briguy7783 ( talk) 17:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
American Cinematographer published an article about Watchmen, which is available online. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 16:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
That looked a lot like Lee Iaccoca in the film, was it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokem ( talk • contribs) 15:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I deleted the spacing in the {{ main}} just because it was unnecessary. I already explained why I removed the bluelink: Rorschash has been established as a character, and has already been bluelinked before (in the article (above)). 68.148.149.184 ( talk) 05:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Please direct me to the MOS section or page which determines your style of formatting for ==Cast==. Firstly, I wanted to put the section into a table. And what does D.M. and W.H. mean in your userbox about The Office?
You did not look at my edit summary: I put {{ who}} beside request, meaning: "Did Silk Spectre ask Manhattan to intervene or did Manhattan refuse to let Silk Spectre intervene?" I will now proceed to revert your bad faith revert. 68.148.149.184 ( talk) 23:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
All you have to do is to look at other articles about films in order to see that the formatting you proposed is not in line with the accepted norm.
Many films cast sections are infact written in table, if they even have a cast section (because otherwise, the title of the section is actually the title of the table). 68.148.149.184 ( talk) 00:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The quotes that have been reverted as they now stand does the article no good:
I had integreated the quotes into the article but they have been reverted. If you want to discuss the change please do so. For the first quote, I had already stated the reason behind the change, and thus it was you, Collectonian, yourresponsibility to start the discussion. 68.148.149.184 ( talk) 05:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to put this article up for a GA nomination tomorrow - if anyone's got a problem with it state below or I'll just go for it. -- Harish ( Talk) - 17:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Took some risks (even if I didn't edit that much) and nominated it. igordebraga ≠ 01:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
? Some of the sections seem a little trivial and irrelevant, I think the Tales of the Black Freighter infobox is not needed. Reviews seems a little.... ehhhh. ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 05:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Removed the infobox, transferred parts of Music to Soundtrack, but make yourself clearer! igordebraga ≠ 23:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think this is a remotely good review to be honest. There's no explaining why things are not needed, or why some of the sections seem "a little trivial and irrelevant" let alone which sections, and you might find it better to review the article in a more typical format. -- Harish ( Talk) - 16:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Lots of information, but it could stand some serious polishing.
Hello. I was absolutely certain there would be a "Differences from the graphic novel" section in this article, like the ones in many other articles about films based on novels. I think the article should at least mention the difference between the endings (describing both endings in comparison and not just the film's ending), so maybe someone's willing to at least make a section for that major difference? Thanks in advance... Kreachure ( talk) 18:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree that -- ESPECIALLY on this page -- a differences section would be very helpful. One would get the impression reading this page that the film was incredibly faithful to the book. The 'Reviews' section particularly emphasises this point of view. I realise that the review section is probably accurately reporting the opinions of the reviewers, but the overall impression is that the comic was virtually used as a storyboard and that very few lines of dialogue were added to or altered. This does seem false, given that numerous scenes and events were added, dialogue was chopped and changed, and that camera shots/sequences usually differed from the book. One needs to watch about 10-15mins of the movie before they can even see the first panel of the book, and even then Rorschach's monologue is shifted to the book's first silent scene. Off-hand, I can't even think of a single scene that accurately follows the book's 'storyboards,' let alone the entire movie. And the addition of all that Hostel-style violence or the LITERAL nuclear countdown clock can hardly be called 'suffocatingly faithful.' I mean, what was all that Nixon stuff? Okay, Nixon was in both the book and the film, but that's about where the similarities stop. The backgrounds, the dialogue, the camera angles, all of that is different. Now I'll stop with the concrete examples here, because I'm virtually writing the section which I should not be doing on the 'discussion' page, but hopefully these few examples will bolster the argument for to someone actually write a differences section. I'd do it myself, but I don't want to subject myself to that awful movie again even for wikipedia's sake. Someone who loves the movie should do it, but please be accurate.-- 203.45.146.36 ( talk) 05:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed on the pages for RocknRolla, Goodfellas and Casino, it mentions which actors provided Narration for the film, so I've added Jackie Earle Haley and Billy Crudup under 'Narrated by', does anyone recall other characters narrating the film? ( Dignam ( talk) 06:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC))
Manhattan when he first goes to Mars and recalls his life and how he went from human to Dr. Manhattan. I'm assuming that would make him a narrator in part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.29.32.136 ( talk) 21:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
But isn't Crudup Manhattan?-- 203.45.146.36 ( talk) 06:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
The article makes mention a of '64-rong choir.' Does anyone know what this is? A search turns up this page only. Is it a typo? Postdarwin ( talk) 01:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I just watched the Director's Cut on DVD and I can't spot all of the additions from the theatrical release; hopefully someone will be able to assemble a list of differences between the two. Also, the article (as of this writing) still refers to the home video release in future-tense. 173.50.230.226 ( talk) 01:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
WTF? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.71.40 ( talk) 13:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I really liked the movie, and I realized there are quite a few key events in history that are portrayed in it, especially during the montage to 'The Times They Are A-Changin' right in the beginning. Maybe a selection of good trivia points is in order?
One that I only realized when I rented the DVD was during Sally Jupiter's retirement party looking almost exactly like Da Vinci's The Last Supper. Creepy. Other things i remember offhand were that monk who burned himself to death at the crossroads in Saigon, Silhouette kissing that girl during V-J celebrations exactly like the famous picture of that sailor, the hippie putting the flower into the barrel of the gun at that Pentagon protest (i think) and of course JFK's assassination by the Comedian. A mention of that smiley face crater on Mars might be cool too. Squiggle ( talk) 16:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Easy there Darren. Those scenes were integral to the background of the story, and that they paralell true events add some signifigance. Squiggle has a valid argument. Jersey John ( talk) 16:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
There is no reason for five paragraphs about Alan Moore's discontent with the medium of film and his disappointment with ALL HIS OTHER MOVIES in this entry.
It's off topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.187.124 ( talk) 01:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Personally I think it's worthy of a mention, Moore has a reputation for being unreasonably pissy about any derivative work based on his originals. Thing is, I don't see him refusing the sales royalties he got for the massive increase in the "Watchmen" graphic novel sales it experienced when this movie was officially announced, and I don't see him asking for the renewed attention in his works (also attributable to this movie) to cease. No movie director should ever "hope" to get his approval - the guy might write awesome, but he's an absolute shitcunt otherwise. 124.148.75.43 ( talk) 01:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
False -- just because someone hates their work being turned into garbage, it doesn't mean they should shoot themselves in the foot. If you lose your wife because of some slack industrial safety standards, will you turn down compensation? And, if you don't, would you be a 'shitcunt'? Moore has lost something very important to him here (Watchmen's legacy), but that's no reason he shouldn't take whatever he can get out of the awful affair.
Now, to my understanding, Moore declined film royalties as a statement, not because he doesn't want to get something out of the disaster. He hopes that by "spitting venom" all over the film people won't go to see it and it will fall into obscurity (thus helping to preserve the book's legacy -- and, more importantly, preserve the experience one is meant to have when reading the book). I don't know how effective this 'statement' has been, but why is he a 'shitcunt' for wanting a silver lining in some of the few places he thinks he can get it?-- 203.45.146.36 ( talk) 04:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Umm, who added this, and why? She's not a critic, the summary of her critique is laughable, and it occurred two-plus years after the release of the movie. One word—unnecessary. 174.99.62.175 ( talk) 03:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Exactly half (167) of the 334 words describing Rohrschach's character devoted to precise details of his unmasked appearances? Really? Removing. PacificBoy 20:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I spent a fair amount of time making what I thought was a pretty solid Revision of the Plot section at 03:10, 15 December 2009, but it has been wholly reverted. I corrected substandard usage, clarified clunky writing, added some transitions to improve flow, removed redundant words and sentences, and rewrote some completely erroneous material (such as suicides and arrests among the Minutemen, and Rorshach warning Veidt). If Darren or anyone else can explain this, I would like to hear it. Edgehawk ( talk) 04:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
The introduction to this wikiarticle does not have any citations. This is in clear violation of WP:LEADCITE, which states:
The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. Contentious material about living persons must be cited every time, regardless of the level of generality. [Emphasis added.]
This is especially so in the case of this wikiarticle’s lede given that it presents a tremendous level of detail and specificity (e.g., the “mired in development hell” background; budget information; box office data; etc.) and is not written at the “greater level of generality than the body” of which the above statement of policy speaks. Therefore, it is not sufficient to say that the reader can locate the verifiable references/ citations elsewhere in the body of the wikiarticle. To present such a detailed and specific lede, without appropriate, verifiable references/citations, violates WP:LEADCITE and, more importantly, WP:V. Not providing citations is not editing against consensus, it is editing against policy, namely WP:LEADCITE and WP:V.
The policies at WP:LEADCITE and WP:V do not make exceptions for WikiProject Films. Moreover, the lead section guidelines at WikiProject Films does not attempt to carve out such an exception and, in fact, says nothing about requiring less references/citations than WP:LEADCITE and WP:V dictate. Thus, one can draw the inference that the maintainers of the WikiProject Films style guide understand that the policies at WP:LEADCITE and WP:V must prevail.
I suggest either providing appropriate citations in the lede, or paring the lede down so that it contains less detailed specificity and is written at a “greater level of generality than the body.” Thanks! — Spike Toronto 00:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Since the section being tagged is at the very top of the article, and seems therefore to create confusion by the placement of {{ Unreferenced section}} at the top of the section — which is also the top of the article — would it be preferable instead to place {{ Citation needed}} tags at the end of the lines that are running afoul of WP:LEADCITE and WP:V?
Again, I have no problem finding the cites and duping them. But, that is a labour-intensive task and I do not want another editor possessed of a belief that WP:LEADCITE and WP:V do not apply, to come along afterwards and revert it. So, what I am trying to achieve here is some sort of editors agreement amongst us that that will not happen, that one’s labour will not be for naught. I also don’t want an edit war over the addition of policy-compliant citations. This is a valid point since, so far, the mere placing of the tag has twice been reverted, reverts which were themselves in violation of policy since correctly placed, policy compliant, maintenance tags cannot be deleted from articles until the issues to which they pertain have been resolved (i.e., the inclusion of the requisite verifiable citations). One should, therefore, understand my hesitation to perform the labour-intensive task involved when another editor is (possibly) sitting there with his/her mouse poised over the Undo button. Thanks Darren for your input! — Spike Toronto 18:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Vigilantes (used several times in this article) seems like the wrong word. From the film it appeared many of them worked with the approval of the government and when the approval was withdrawn retired. Masked Heroes would be more accurate. But if any are strongly in favor of keeping vigilante let me know and I won't make the change. Nitpyck ( talk) 23:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Isn't this a pre-apocalyptic film? - the bombs go off at the end - and even then they only kill a tiny proportion of the population in an effort to prevent an apocalypse. Nitpyck ( talk) 06:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Development of Watchmen only lacks some things with the sourcing to pass. Can anyone help me, specially because that article is what the former Development section of this article used to be? igordebraga ≠ 03:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
This doesn't seem very 'encyclopedic':
65.68.136.227 ( talk) 19:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I've moved the bulk of the text from the Music section here. It was tagged for needing sourcing since September 2010. Please feel free to reincorporate into the article with appropriate refs! Doniago ( talk) 15:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Music
| ||
---|---|---|
The film uses a mix of popular songs from a variety of 1960s artists such as Bob Dylan, Leonard Cohen, Jimi Hendrix, Simon and Garfunkel, and Janis Joplin, many of which were songs referenced in the original graphic novel. It also includes a remake of Bob Dylan's classic " Desolation Row" by rock band My Chemical Romance. Richard Wagner's famous " Ride of the Valkyries" appears in a Vietnam flashback sequence, referencing both the Under the Hood mention in the graphic novel and a similar sequence from Francis Ford Coppola's Apocalypse Now using the same music. original research? An arrangement of Philip Glass's score for the film Koyaanisqatsi was used during the Dr. Manhattan origin sequence, and was also used for some of the trailers prior to the film's release. An excerpt from Glass's opera Satyagraha was used as well. The Requiem Mass in D minor (K. 626) by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart can be heard near the end of the film. Aside from the soundtrack, an original score was composed by Tyler Bates, who previously worked with Snyder on 300. Separate soundtrack and original score albums were released around the time of the film's opening. |
Removed the following lines:
Nowhere in the movie are any of these things mentioned. In the "Behind the Hood" segment on the Ultimate Edition Blu-ray, Hollis Mason reveals that Hooded Justice vanished when HUAC demanded to know his true identity.
PainMan ( talk) 00:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
How come there is no mention of the actor who played Dr. Malcolm Long, who treated Rosasch? What is the actor's name? -- 67.86.110.9 ( talk) 16:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)Veryverser
From the article:
I don't recall how it was handled in the film (and the "Wright" reference is not properly cited, making the claim unverifiable), but a U.S. President cannot under law be "repeatedly reelected" for four terms without a repeal of the 22nd Amendment by Congress or following the assumption of emergency powers by the President himself. In the comic, that's exactly what happened: Nixon was still President because he had enacted emergency powers in the 1970s. I don't recall the film deviating that strongly from the original. Can someone fact check this and fix as necessary? 12.233.146.130 ( talk) 00:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)