PlanBFromOuterSpace 3138 Posted June 5, 2013 I actually like "Watchmen" more with each time I see it, the further I remove it from the source material and take it as it's own film. That's about the time that I stopped re-reading the graphic novels right before watching the movies, because you're almost looking for reasons to not enjoy yourself, y'know? There were a lot of good "making of" books and things that came out that show a lot of the siiiiiick level of detail that went into that movie, only to never really be seen, which is a shame, even in the nearly 4 hour Ultimate Cut. It's also one of those movies that's crazy long but doesn't really feel like it to me, sort of like "Scarface", because I guess I know every beat of it by now. Share this post Link to post
sillstaw 414 Posted June 5, 2013 I actually like "Watchmen" more with each time I see it, the further I remove it from the source material and take it as it's own film. That's about the time that I stopped re-reading the graphic novels right before watching the movies, because you're almost looking for reasons to not enjoy yourself, y'know?  That may have been one of my problems with the movie (at least in that some details were either made less subtle or, in the case of the "Outer Limits" reference, were muddled by changes to the source material*). But other things about it turned me off, as well. I imagine it would have been better if someone who wasn't all about action made it, but of course, you can't make a $130-million superhero movie without throwing in a few action scenes.  Also—and I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm just saying this—I don't want to bother watching a 4-hour "Ultimate Cut" of any movie, unless it's a really good, important film. That's less about wanting to waste time and more just a dislike of so-called "director's/unrated cuts." I kind of prefer judging movies based on what people who paid to see it in theaters saw, because if you're not going to put something in the version where people's first impressions are made, then it's not worth considering.  * In the book, the specific "Outer Limits" episode playing is about a man-made alien threat intended to force the world into peace, alluding to Ozy's plot. By changing his plot, and also just showing the intro instead of naming the episode, the reference is meaningless and could have been cut with no ill effect on the movie. Yes, I AM a nitpick-y bastard. Share this post Link to post
PlanBFromOuterSpace 3138 Posted June 5, 2013 In the case of "Watchmen" though, I get the sense that Snyder really wanted to put as much out there as he could in terms of doing the complete story, so I'm a little more forgiving of there being the extended cut of it, because I don't think the theatrical version missing key elements was necessarily his fault. Even at nearly three hours, it was pretty heavily cut, and while it's a shame we didn't get the whole thing first time out, it's still kind of admirable that the studio let him put out a trimmed-down version of the film that was THREE HOURS long, you know? When does that ever happen really? They had such high hopes for it and Snyder was riding super high at that point because of three hundred, so they let him get away with quite a lot. Share this post Link to post
wakefresh 689 Posted June 5, 2013 In the case of "Watchmen" though, I get the sense that Snyder really wanted to put as much out there as he could in terms of doing the complete story, so I'm a little more forgiving of there being the extended cut of it, because I don't think the theatrical version missing key elements was necessarily his fault. Even at nearly three hours, it was pretty heavily cut, and while it's a shame we didn't get the whole thing first time out, it's still kind of admirable that the studio let him put out a trimmed-down version of the film that was THREE HOURS long, you know? When does that ever happen really? They had such high hopes for it and Snyder was riding super high at that point because of three hundred, so they let him get away with quite a lot. Â Aaaaaand then he used that goodwill and clout to make Sucker Punch. 1 Share this post Link to post
SlidePocket 707 Posted August 28, 2017 Kate Bosworth was dreadfully miscast as Lois, considering she was supposed to play a veteran news reporter, but yet was only 23 at the time and looks like it, not to mention it looked like she was wearing a bad wig throughout. 1 Share this post Link to post