Talk:Watchmen (2009 film)

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Watchmen (2009 film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1: 30 days

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Watchmen (2009 film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 17, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed

Film: Comic book / War / Core / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article is supported by the Comic book films task force.
	This article is supported by the War films task force.
	This article is on the project's core list.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Comics: British / DC Comics / Films Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Related work groups:
/
	This article is supported by British comics work group.
	This article is supported by DC Comics work group.
	This article is supported by Comic book films work group.

Alternate History (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternate History, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Alternate HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Alternate HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Alternate HistoryAlternate History

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

"The 50 most-viewed Wikipedia articles in 2009 and 2008". The Daily Telegraph. August 17, 2009. Archived from the original on August 9, 2018. Retrieved August 9, 2018.

Archives

Index 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 10 sections are present.

Running Time

Why is there only one running time given? I've witnessed there seems to be a change in policy in Wikipedia, since all the films only have one running time given, even if there are a couple of versions out there. Can someone please help me? 87.174.213.6 (talk) 10:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the infobox is intended to be a short summary focusing on the theatrical version of the film. Information about alternate version runtimes can be included in the article proper. Doniago (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The running time on the sidebar at the moment is the max. running time from the 'Ultimate Edition' disc. If that box must only contain one time, it should be the theatrical release, by default (2:45 according to the text. --Registar (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Silver criticizes Snyder

Joel Silver critized Zach Snyder for being a "slave to the material"[1] and Snyder (and others) noted that the ending proposed by Silver would not have been acceptable to fans of the original. That's the short version.

My question is where best to include this information? It could be added to this article or particularly the details of the proposed ending to Production of Watchmen. It seems awkward to add comments from Silver and the response from Snyder to the Critical reception although it is interesting that Snyder says Watchemen his favorite of the films he has made. Maybe the right answer is to include bits of this new information across the articles in a few different places? Suggestions? -- 109.79.196.86 (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sequal?

http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/02/01/watchmen-2-is-happening

Does this deserve any mention in this article? 68.172.221.204 (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That article discusses the comics sequel, not the film. Corvoe (speak to me) 23:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

runtime edit

With regard to this edit, the rollback was in error - I hit rollback by mistake, however by the time I corrected and saved it Dave Lars had corrected it again. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Production Companies

Legendary Pictures was part of this movie and it doesn’t need to be referenced. Crazybob2014 (talk) 04:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a bizarre statement. See WP:V. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its true! Crazybob2014 (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Ebert’s quote magnified compared to the others?

Does he have something that much more significant compared to other top critics? Is there some Wikipedia rule I’m missing? On another note, I’ll be removing ‘satirical’ in the lead section due to being mentioned in very few sources, along with being disputed heavily https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/high-fidelity-zack-snyder-watchmen-and-missing-point https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/03/09/dark-visions https://www.indiewire.com/2014/03/zack-snyder-hits-back-says-he-made-watchmen-to-save-it-from-the-terry-gilliams-of-the-world-88511/ https://www.filminquiry.com/zack-snyder-master-right-wing-propaganda/ . I’ll also likely change ‘too confusing to understand’ in the critical reception lead since a study of the RT reviews says otherwise. Barely made one (talk) 11:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since I see him mentioned first in most of the critical reception sections, I'll be placing him up accordingly and removing the magnification. It seems like a much more subtle and appropriate way of showing he's one of the more famous. Barely made one (talk) 08:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors have an unhealthy obsession with page layout and love to use blockquotes or quoteboxes to pull out one or more critics. In rare cases that emphasis is insightful but in most cases it is an unhelpful distraction, a break in the flow. I'm glad you removed it.

Having said that Ebert a very famous critic due to his long career, in print (Chicago Sun Times), and television (At The Movies) and he is the internet's favorite critic since he made his reviews easily available to read online long before most other critics. -- 109.78.216.45 (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Age Rating

I was just considering whether an age rating should be present in the description of the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ooh Saad (talk • contribs) 14:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not normally no. See WP:FILMRATING.

It is already mentioned in the box office section though which is fine. -- 109.78.216.45 (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it Alan Moore or Dave Gibbons who is uncredited?

Hello! On the sidebar under "Based on" it says that Watchmen was by:

Alan Moore

(uncredited)

Dave Gibbons

Which one of the two is uncredited? I'm not sure whether it's a parenthesis following Moore's name or an indicator of a category for further names, i.e. Dave Gibbons. Thanks.

(Whoops, forgot to sign my post. Here you go: PaintTrash (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Alan Moore insists on being uncredited on later works. The reasons why are described at bit in Alan Moore#Film adaptations. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]