Jump to content

Talk:Watchmen (2009 film)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

POV concern

"yet staying true"?? This is speculation and heavily POV 24.33.28.52 15:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Very true. I've removed that bit. HighEnergyProtons 14:18, 13 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)

Casting rumors

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)

Release date

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 haven't heard any news about Watchmen or its release date lately, and I've been keeping an eye out for it. I added "TBA" for the release information just to clear up any confusion. --Erik 01:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

ew.com url

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 see the problem you're having. I changed it to an embedded link for the time being. I had moved it up from External links because someone wanted a citation for Moore preferring Hayter's script. However, seeing the extensive article at the link, we could move the link back to External links if whoever requested citation for Hayter's script is fine with a nondirect citation. --Erik 15:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Fixed. You can always escape characters in URLs as %hex; see URL normalization.--Oneiros 00:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Project history

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)

One glaring flaw in the Project history section that I hope someone can correct, is the changeover from Universal to Revolution. I could not seem to find anything to report when Universal had dropped the project (Revolution is under Sony Pictures, so it's not an extension of Universal). If anyone could add that information to the end of the Universal Studios subsection, that could fill in the only gap I can see in this particular section. --Erik 00:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I've fixed this flaw. All the gaps should be filled in now. --Erik 05:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

applause

Just a brief notice here to acknowledge's Erikster's great hard work revising the entire article. ThuranX 22:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. There was certainly more in-depth information about this film compared to Batman Triumphant. :) --Erik 00:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, now yer just picking fights. LOL. ThuranX 00:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Citations for use

  • Heather Newgen (2007-02-11). "Zack Snyder on Watchmen's Progress". SuperHeroHype.com. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • Alex Billington (2007-02-11). "Zack Snyder Reveals Watchmen Details - CGI Choices and More!". FirstShowing.net. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Citations for use. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 13:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Tests of Dr. Manhattan?

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)

Rock Opera

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)

Late 2008

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)

Care to provide links to these interviews? And don't be insulting by calling it "stupid". —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 12:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

alex tse script

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).

According to this, Tse's initial script was contemporary like Hayter's script. It's highly likely that it has been revised since to establish the 1980s setting. I'll see if I can re-word it to make the revision more obvious. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 04:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Podcast

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)

Right-click and save seems to work for me. Might need to play it in a media player instead of your browser. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I just clicked on the link that says "Direct download: fbr_381.mp3" and it opened in Quicktime -- I'm at work, so it's a no-go for me, listening wise. María: (habla conmigo) 14:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for trying, anyway. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:35, 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)

Thanks, anyway. Doesn't seem to be of that much use, and I personally think that the studio shouldn't think that Watchmen will be as successful as 300, despite having the same director -- they're two completely different films, despite their comic book nature. Also, the Will Wheaton mention is probably not worth including; it's like a reporter asking about Jude Law as a possibility and Snyder saying, "Yeah, sure" about it. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Variety

Some Variety citations that could replace existing citations. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

AICN Casting Rumours

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)

Thanks for the heads-up. Usually, though, when a movie website reports a rumor of so-and-so being cast and it turns out to be false, it's not really encyclopedic content. If the information is true, we'll cite an official source (from the studio itself) about the casting. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Another thing to note: Keanu Reeves is cast into The Night Watchman per this, so it would be kind of hard to believe that he'll be in two Watchman-esque films. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Doubt on Watchmen?

Aw, crap... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I question the context, however; he's talking about his lack of a role offer (and I always thought he would rule at The Comedian). So Butler may not be implying that Watchmen as a project isn't happening; just that it may not be happening for him. You can never tell with these tiny blurb stories with their shoddy copy-and-paste jobs. Here's to hoping! María (habla conmigo) 17:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Keanu Reeves

[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)

Sounds good to me. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


Quote from Rorschach's page

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)

And it's uncited there too. Wikipedia is NEVER a source for Wikipedia. It's the first rule, like don't talk about... well, you know already, and I can't talk about it. ThuranX 02:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
If you can find an attributable source like a newspaper quoting Jude Law about his tattoo and his interest, it would probably not be so vital for the film article. There is enough actual casting information that it doesn't warrant information about actors/actresses interested in particular roles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Casting rumors, etc.

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)

Moore on Snyder

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)

There's no source for nothign to talk about. Moore's reticence to see ANY of his works turned into film could be mentioned, but only in the context of adherence to the original script, because that' where it's relevant; Moore has said Watchmen was created to fully exploit the nature of the medium, and that any conversion would fail because of that. If a controversy section becomes needed (and this is NOT enough to warrant it), that might be the place to put such statements. Right now, however, a famously taciturn, reclusive comics writer who doesn't say much about anything he does after he's done with it doesn't mean much. ThuranX 23:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC) PS - please use four Tildes to sign your posts. found under the escape key, they would look, properly used, like this: ~~~~
I agree with ThuranX. You can't report non-information and personally determine that the absence of news is notable. If Snyder says something along the lines of, "I tried to talk to Moore about the film, but he declined to meet me," that could be included. Until something like that happens, there's nothing more to say. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
"No news is good news". Alientraveller 09:56, 22 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)

There is already mention that the director hopes to speak to the writer. Because no dialogue has been public, the mention stays. When Moore says something public, that mention will be transformed into Moore's perspective of this recent incarnation. There's no need to surmise on our own the events that will or will not take place. There's nothing about Moore commenting on the Greengrass incarnation, and we can't expect that there will be a comment from him about the Snyder incarnation. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:49, 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)

San Fran Chronicle on Alex Tse (scriptwriter)

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)

Wasn't ignoring AGF. apologies to IP if he thought so. Ireally mean it. For what purpose should we look at this material? Criticism ofthe writer? perhaps, but only on a blog, which aren't often Reliable Sources. The rest was just me analyzing and breaking down the blockquote to address why it's a poor source/addition. Frankly, this IP needs to register and come back here, hes' got two solid talk page sections in a row. ThuranX 23:19, 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)

He wrote Sucker Free City, too. I found the San Francisco Chronicle profile that CHUD.com had mentioned. It provided some history for him, so I went ahead and created a bio article for him. Feel free to expand and explain his writing style. The citation's there. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Rorschach's Journal

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)

Billy Crudup

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)

Yup, looking forward to all the announcements at the Con. Alientraveller 17:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Official synopsis

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)

It's a press release, but I'm unsure if it's necessary. This article is currently a fork for Watchmen. Alientraveller 19:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
True, but not everyone will come here through Watchmen. Some may follow links from Zack Snyder or somewhere else, being unfamiliar with the project. If the synopsis is acceptable, it should be included to provide a stand-alone article where possible, like what was applied at The Lovely Bones. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Done. Alientraveller 19:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Couldn't have done it better myself. Good work. Now, for filming to begin already... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Fake viral sites

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)

Well, crap. and after I submitted the morse code translations and all. ThuranX 04:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Hah! :-P —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Comics2Film identified it as being the work of TheOneRing.net ages ago. Alientraveller 09:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I know, I saw the comment you left me around that time. But I meant to ask: Does this information have a place anywhere in the article? Maybe in a Marketing section with the Rorschach test shot? The New York magazine should be a fairly attributable source... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
As it's faked, I don't think including it is encyclopedic. Further, Being the work of 'TheOneRing' didn't, on it's own, invalidate it's legitimacy. TOR handled many official releases of info for the LOTR production. This time, things worked out differently. oh well. ThuranX 15:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Poster

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)

Thank you very much! It's been included. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Interview with Zack Snyder

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)


Carla Gugino

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)

I checked for headlines but found nothing. The Hollywood Reporter indicates that she's doing both Watchmen and Righteous Kill. Can't rely on IMDb, can we? :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Watchmencomicmovie.com

Have any of you guys seen this sight. They have pictures from the set and according them there already shooting. They have pictures of specific scenes, like Doctor Manhattan meeting JFK. While some of these could just be small pre-shoots that aren't part of the main shoot, but they claim on the site that there already shooting with Billy Crudup in the Doc Manhattan suit.
I think someone should look at it and see if it's reliable. It's at [6]
If it's true than some adjustments need to be made on this page. annoynmous 02:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
According to The Hollywood Reporter, shooting starts on September 17. I'd wager that it's just some pre-shooting. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Neverthless don't you think we should at least restore the link to the site. The pictures look pretty legit so shouldn't the site be considered relevant. annoynmous 02:39, 13 September 22007 (UTC)
Under WP:EL criteria, personal web pages like this one are discouraged. In addition, the "news articles" at the web page depend on anonymous sources, which are not verifiable or even appropriate to be in the public scope. That's why we use reliable sources -- when information about the film gets out through them, the sources are backed by reputation and editorial oversight. This personal web page has neither. Lastly, I've seen a couple of other fan-based external links similar to this one that were previously added to the article, so permitting this one is just giving leeway to the rest of them. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Teaser poster

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)

Sounds good to me, and yeah, given the long acrimony between the creators and the very IDEA of a film, it's notable that the artist returned like that. ThuranX 00:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Orci and Kurtzman rewrite?

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)

I'd probably hold off on reporting it -- there's no indication of the site getting the information in an official capacity, as SHH shows. If the information is true, it should come out through a more reliable source. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Consultant

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)

Interesting, but I'd rather include him until what he has actually done for the film is known and/or important. Alientraveller 20:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sculptures

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)

Starlog

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)

New info and production stills

...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 conmigo) 18:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This was revealed on the official blog by the way. Most of it is just trivial "how many donuts the construction workers ate" facts and figures. At least the current Rorshach pic has a story. Alientraveller (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that it was from the official blog, I just thought it may be of use. Besides, the current Rorshach pic isn't really a Rorshach pic at all; it's a development teaser, whereas these are actual production stills. María (habla conmigo) 19:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Still, there's not much use for these images, and better images for Kovacs will come up once they actually discuss how his ink blots are gonna be computer-generated. Alientraveller (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that there's any context in the article that could warrant inclusion of the production stills. The stills look great, but when we incorporate images in this encyclopedic article, there should be some real-world context directly at the specific shot or the content within. Actually, when we get to that, I would suggest phasing out the test shot in favor of actual screenshots that will have more relevance to the article. However, I think that we should hold onto the Comic-Con teaser poster even when a new poster comes out, placing it in the authors' response section to show Dave Gibbons' collaboration to this project as opposed to previous incarnations. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Gibbons response from the set

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)

I removed the passage that you had attempted to add. Can you say what information in these citations could be incorporated beyond Gibbons' existing statement, "I'm basically supporting it"? In film articles, positive statements about those involved with production, even in an indirect way, may not be completely neutral, sounding instead like a shill. (Remember that this was posted at the official site, so think of it this way -- if Gibbons had any issues with production, would it have been mentioned there?) For the most part, opinions are downplayed until the film comes out and can be reviewed by independent critics. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Alan Moore

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)

Yeah, Moore is refusing credit, but if something miraculous like him bothering to see the film and enjoying it, then we shouldn't count our chickens before they hatch. Alientraveller (talk) 11:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Considering that we're an encyclopedia of secondary sources, not the "official" source of the film, we shouldn't concern ourselves with the legal issues. What matters is that Alan Moore was responsible for the comic, and there is sufficient real-world context to explain his severing of ties with this film. As I recall, we still list the comic book creator for one of the superheroes even though legal issues kept his name from being officially attached to it. This is slightly different, but it shouldn't disregard what has come before. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Headlines

Carla Gugino Gets Sexy For Silk Spectre In ‘'Watchmen'’ --J.D. (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up! I've included content from the article. Feel free to review and see if there's anything more that can be extracted. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Future content organisation and summarising

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)

Considering the length of the Development section that is disjointed from the actual production, perhaps we can separate per WP:SS under History of the Watchmen film? I think we could move all of the Development section and the pre-Snyder comments to that article. Present it in prose, of course -- no film article layout. Maybe I'm biased, having put the sections together, but I think the information is useful in showing the arc of the whole project. Before actually moving it, though, I think we should wait to see if the content increase actually happens. Also, others' opinions are welcome. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:13, 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)

More coverage about this lawsuit, which will likely be settled out, your run-of-the-mill critical reception, and the overload of production detail thanks to a devoted fan base -- yeah, it's going to be long. :) We're listed second on Google, below Wikipedia's article on the graphic novel. (That reminds me, maybe I should revisit my project to revise it...) We're providing a nice centralization of all the film's details here, that's for sure. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

possible update to the page "Fox sues WB over Watchmen"

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)

It already has. Alientraveller (talk) 15:25, 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)

Future Comics?

Why is this under the category of "Discussion of Future Comics"? Cubzrule (talk) 08:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Because it's based on one. Alientraveller (talk) 10:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
That's the only criteria? Wouldn't the fact that this is a movie not make this a "future comic"? Cubzrule (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
You misunderstand: this is part of what the Comics Project covers. Film adaptations are part of the understanding of the cultural impact of a comic. Alientraveller (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

New Pic of Rorschach

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)

Thanks for bringing that up. I'm not sure if there's a place for it in the article itself at this point, though. I checked my copy of Watchmen, but there's no frame match for a side-by-side comparison. Plus, it's not a clear view of Rorschach, either. I think we should wait till we have an image that can have some kind of encyclopedic impact. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. Just thought I'd bring it up in case we need it. Slusho42 (talk) 12:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Character Pics

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)

Proper link is http://rss.warnerbros.com/watchmen/2008/03/one_year_to_go_1.html for the original Warner Bros blog post 70.71.197.16 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Useless

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)

All films have their share of production stills. It's unnecessary to report every time a batch comes out, and Watchmen should be no special case. If you noticed, Alientraveller suggested instead uploading each character image from the film and adding each one to their respective character article on Wikipedia. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Bit confused about the comparison, but heck, I did follow through and add the images to their pages. Alientraveller (talk) 08:35, 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)

I'm not mate. I just thought it was odd such public images would need to be linked. I myself was surprised someone didn't upload the images for Nite Owl and Silk Spectre sooner. Alientraveller (talk) 09:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The differences between novels (including graphical ones ) and movie versions are significant I thought - throughout WP there are numerous refs about other diffs between canon and movie. As the source material of Watchmen is a wholly graphical volume, I thought surely the first release of graphical evidence of variance was/is significant.
And probably also I took offence at being called useless lolVault-emort (talk) 09:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you suggesting we place an image of Ozymandias or Nite Owl in the article, considering Snyder did updating them? Alientraveller (talk) 09:25, 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)

In any case, the images are now on this site. Alientraveller (talk) 09:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Kewl - I guess i still need to fully understand copyright use in WPVault-emort (talk) 10:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The difficulty with dealing with an article on an upcoming film is that we will keep getting new images all the time -- either production stills or screen caps from trailers and clips. The film is a little under a year away, so think about everything that can happen until then. I'm fine with the costume image being in the article, but when the film comes out, we should have images that are representative of the film, not necessarily promo shots. I guess my personal example would be Fight Club (film) with almost all images being screen caps, and it illustrates the background of the film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:05, 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)

Well, what I was trying to suggest was to use common sense. Images like the one of Nite Owl aren't truly representative of the film, so it would be better to replace promotional images like those with actual screen caps from the film itself. It's easier to add just any non-free image to a film article, but per WP:NFC, we need to ensure the significance of the image. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Citations

Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

HD trailer

I didn't see it linked in the article yet, but the HD trailer has already been released by Apple here. María (habla conmigo) 12:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up; I included a broader URL so readers can have choices. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Aw, but the HD is so much cooler! :) Thanks, María (habla conmigo) 15:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
There's still the option for HD, but remember: some people are on slow internet connections, so HD wouldn't be very cool for them. Cavenba (talk • contribs) 02:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I was being facetious. María (habla conmigo) 18:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Boycott updates?

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)

Chirp. Horwendil (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
At this point, I do not believe that there are any reliable sources covering boycotts for this film. A lot of franchise-based films garner some controversy with fans organizing petitions to oppose the film in one aspect or in its entirety. Dragonball has a few "haters", too, but their disgust has not been reported in mainstream media. It's far too easy to set up something on the "internets" and claim that there is significant attention on a topic. Reliable sources have editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking, so until such issues are covered by them, it is not truly verifiable for inclusion. If you want, keep an eye out for possible reliable sources (petitiononline.com does not count, FYI) and bring them here so we can see if the coverage is valid. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, the only negative reaction has come from Moore. Fan consensus has been very positive, not that I'd bother to add info on reaction to a montage. Alientraveller (talk) 13:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Looks like it to me. You see, Moore is a genius, but he hates everything but The Wire. — Kieff | Talk 02:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The Sounds of Silence

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)

OK, I guess the source was wrong. Best to leave it out and wait for clarification (ie. did the band give specific permission for the song). Alientraveller (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Trailer song

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)

It's worth a single sentence. Also, the first reference doesn't mention the song, but it was an interesting read, anyways. Gary King (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Rorschach's mask

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

Actually, in the novel, the black parts change due to air pressure/temperature, not random. But if that's such for the movie (what you said), then they did change it. Who knows though. --ZacLOL (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
What does "random" mean? When he sees the dogs fighting over a femur bone, the pattern of spots on his face suggest "discovery" or "surprise" or possibly even "shock". Maybe Gibbons intended that (or Moore did) or maybe I am just reading that into them. And air pressure and temperature can definitely be affected by the human face beneath them. Horwendil (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Let's not speculate about this. Remember that these are two different mediums, so there may have been changes made to be more suitable for being on screen. It's not worth comparing unless we can back it with a reliable source explaining it, per MOS:FILM#Adaptations. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
(To Horwendil) The way the OP worded it, i speculated he thought the blots just freely moved around, just moving every which way. But they don't. It says so in the scene of the book where he's making the dress that he turns into the mask. --ZacLOL (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Which novel do you refer to? Where in the comics does it say it responds to air pressure? We'd need citations. We need further citation to comment beyond 'shifting patterns' on the movie version as well. ThuranX (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
In the book, chapter 6 page 10 the fabric is described as "viscous fluids between two layers latex, heat and pressure sensitive." By random I simply meant that they didn't have any meaning. In the main Watchmen article, in the artwork section, it states "Contrary to popular opinion, Gibbons contends that Rorschach's subtle body language and not his Rorschach test-inspired mask are the real indications of his mood" with a citation. It wasn't particularly important, I was just looking for clarification on whether the film-Rorschach's mask will differ in this regard, and if so on where this info had been found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.162.175 (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The mask probably does respond to heat and pressure from his face, but it doesn't really "mirror" his emotions or thoughts. Let's not forget it's just like the inkblot test. We see what we want to see within it, so of course we tend to attach emotions to the image that seem appropriate to his situation. I think Dr. Long said it best when he realized the truth of it, that as hard as we want to find meaning in the blackness, there is really nothing there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.42 (talk) 13:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Let's keep speculation to forums, please... we use the talk page for discussing how to improve the article, per the talk page guidelines. Unless we have some tangible sources to use for expanding detail about the mask, we're not going to find any answers in speculation here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

David Hayter interview

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)

Second paragraph in lead and last paragraph of development. Alientraveller (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be prudent to separate the legal battle from "Development", since that section is more about what went on before Snyder got on board? It doesn't stand out so well. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I see it now, thank you Alientraveller. I obviously agree with Erik about it not standing out very well. As a reader, I would appreciate something being mentioned in the Lead section regarding the Fox/Warner issues and that Fox is currently attempting to block the release. But I concede that it's mentioned in Development. JamesLikesBeer (talk) 16:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
it's in the lead already, James. However, I agree that it may soon warrant its' own section. Right now, it's an impediment to development and release, but if it persists and gets more coverage, I'd support breaking it out into a Development subsection. ThuranX (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of Develoment Needed

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)

Why don't you read the section the lead summarises? Alientraveller (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Ending possibly changed (spoiler alert)

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 morecharacter 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 resources sound like a good start. I'm sure that when the film's release date gets closer, there will be a flurry of coverage about these endings. (Man, the spoiler skirmish is going to be fun.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
The end of this article contains a good quote about thematic preservation, if not plot, from Snyder. Alientraveller (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
As does this one from Gibbons, who indicates WB made Snyder shoot some unfaithful stuff which they later let slide as they were impressed by the film. I look forward to full confirmation. Alientraveller (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Zack Snyder confirmed in an interview that the squid has been replaced and there are NOT alternate endings. ShadowUltra (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
An additional interview about the changed ending with IGN. [8] Alientraveller (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
MTV weighs the pros and cons of the change. [9] Alientraveller (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Moore's Reactions

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)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've reworded the section to hew closer to the text of the citation (page 4). Steve T • C 08:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Silk Spectre

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)

I've often seen within comic books and within literature talking about comic book characters (including some Wikipedia articles) that when talking about different "generations" of a character that they'll use a roman numeral to distinguish between them. For example, when talking about Robin in the Batman comics you have the original, Dick Grayson, who can be called Robin I while the person who took on the Robin name and costume after Grayson stopped being Robin could be called Robin II. However, the characters themselves never call themselves "Robin I" or "Robin II" within the comic itself, the roman numeral is only helpful to avoid confusion when talking about multiple versions of the same character. So Sally Jupiter was Silk Spectre, and Laurie Juspeczyk was also Silk Spectre. The same can be said for Nite Owl, both Daniel Dreiberg and Hollis Mason used the Nite Owl name and costume, yet only Daniel Dreiberg is credited in the film cast as Nite Owl (and not Nite Owl II even though he was the second one). I'm assuming that Sally Jupiter and Hollis Mason get very little "costume time" in the film which is why they are only referred to by their "civilian" names. -- Atamachat 23:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Viral Website?

http://www.thenewfrontiersman.net/ its worth mentioning —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.182.228.205 (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This article talks about some fake viral sits. Thenewfrontiersman.net is not mentioned and I also found another article that talks about it, so I'm assuming it's real. – Zntrip 00:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

BUDGET

Not $120m - total budget with marketing costs is $150m, as quote by Warner Bros. I would update the page myself, but don't know how to add references. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090118/ap_en_mo/watchmen_movie_lawsuit). Armuk (talk) 11:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction tag

The paragraph first says Charles McKeown rewrote the script, but then it says this second draft "was credited to Gilliam, Warren Skaaren, and Hamm". There is a discrepancy there that needs to be addressed. - 207.237.223.118 (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Good eye, get right on it, come back when you find out something new. Good luck. ThuranX (talk) 04:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
RE: Your edit summary "not like your fingers are broken" -- Did you really think it was absolutely necessary to be gratuitously rude and insulting? If so, why?
Please read WP:ETIQUETTE. Thank you. --207.237.223.118 (talk) 06:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it was. Tagging and running is NOT good etiquette. If you are familiar enough with Wikipedia to tag, you are familiar enough to fix. So Fix It. Do the work. And don't be surprised if people more familiar know already something you don't about an article, and revert it because there is no contradiction, just statements of fact. Sometimes a person is hired to write, but doesn't get credit. It's really that simple. And Drive by tagging is not a good faith act, it's a means of provocation. You may have come to talk, which is a half-step better, but you shouted, effectively 'I don't understand, make me smarter' and ran. Perhaps you should learn to do less tagging and more researching. If you don't like researching, then I suggest you start learning how, or accept that more of your tag and run edits will be reverted. ThuranX (talk) 08:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The tags exist for a reason -- to be used. It's not "tagging and running" to use a tag. By that logic, tags should not exist. And I find it odd that one would answer, 'Yes, it was" to "Did you really think it was absolutely necessary to be gratuitously rude and insulting?" I don't believe there's ever a reason to be rude.
In any case, the McKeown claim needs a citation. If he really worked on the script, why isn't he credited? Yes, uncredited rewrites exist -- but where did this claim originate? I found mirror references of this Wikipedia claim, but no independent confirmation online regarding McKeown. This needs a citation. -- 207.237.223.118 (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
So where does the citation for who it's credited to comes from? It's all sourced to the 30th citation, David Hughes' book. Alientraveller (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
ThuranX, your snark is hostile, unnecessary, and only helps to discourage people from contributing to WP in good faith. That you go further and insist that your rude behavior is necessary and good etiquette is beyond the Pale. I suggest you take a break from WP for awhile. 68.73.93.130 (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Watchmen Blog

Hey,

Just wanted to say that http://blog.watchmenmovie.ca is in fact the official blog set up by Warner Bros. Canada, so the link deserves to be up under the "Marketing" and "External Links" section.

Thanks, Jake —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jake86 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The official blog is at the official site. Alientraveller (talk) 11:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


If by "official site" you mean the American site (www.watchmenmovie.com), that is not the blog. There's a production diary, but it's not a full blog. At the Canadian site (which is in fact official and set up by Warner Bros. Canada), there is a blog allowing people to comment and discuss. Go check it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.207.10 (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's see if someone else isn't too sure about its importance. Alientraveller (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but it's not really about "importance." It's a fact, so it belongs on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.207.10 (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Untrue, there are many unimportant facts and unless there's something worthwhile from that site other than mentioning it exists twice and not even linking it in Marketing, don't. Alientraveller (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, I was really suspicious about this "official blog" when I saw all its posts were uncredited hyperbole, and then I checked and I see it's not official, it's a full advertisement by the Canadian film magazine Tribute. This has nothing to do with WB at all. You want info on Alan Moore? Read Wikipedia. You want downloads, trailers? Visit the real official site. Sorry if you got confused, but this is just an ad. We link the main official site to save space, not the UK site (unless it's a British film), not the production diary, not an advert by some magazine with a little WB logo at the bottom. Alientraveller (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's the Warner Bros. Canada website set up by Tribute.ca. That's the way we do it up here. It is official and it is set up by Warner Bros. I don't understand what the issue is and why you're so adamant about taking it down. It's the Canadian site, plain and simple, and it hosts the official blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.207.10 (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I give up per WP:3RR. Don't be surprised if someone else removes the link. Alientraveller (talk) 23:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hughes book

As my fellow editor Erik and I were discussing on our respective talk pages, there are several citations for the David Hughes chapter "Who Watches the Watchmen? - How The Greatest Graphic Novel of Them All Confounded Hollywood" in the book The Greatest Sci-Fi Movies Never Made. Except the the information about Terry Gilliam's stage of the script, on page 147, none of the other Hughes cites have page numbers. Erik had gotten the book from a library long ago, and I don't have it. Might someone out there have this book, and be able to supply page numbers for its citations?

And hey! Someone (not me) has put in cites for a Watchmen article I wrote. Cool! -- 207.237.223.118 (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Advertising

The film is being advertised in the game Saints Row 2 on various billboards around the city —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.5.44 (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

And TrackMania Nations for that matter. I'm not sure how vital these are to the article though - advertisements in video games are pretty common nowadays. SpinachPuffs (talk) 15:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

yeah, this is just trivia. ThuranX (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

C-Class rated for Comics Project

As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T 14:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Critical reception dispute

There has been a significant passage of negative reviews being added to the "Critical reception" section, which seems to disturb the balance of reviews. An effort was made to trim back the number of negative reviews so there were slightly less of them than positive reviews based on the sample size found at Rotten Tomatoes. Metacritic has only seven reviews (usually maxes out at over 30, especially for mainstream films), so this is too early to start treating the consensus as accurate. Especially when the film is not out yet! What do others think? This is the negatively slanted revision, and This is the more balanced revision. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Sample sizes of seven (Metacritic) and six (Rotten Tomatoes' selected notable reviewers) are far too small from which to glean accurate statistics. As such, I concur with the recommendation to use the second version until both sites have assembled more reviews. Steve T • C 00:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Juspeczyk/Jupiter

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

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

Firstly, I expect this to be an article full of fan boys and girls. Hence, please don't get upset with me doing my job. Also, please remember that there are loads of things that could be linked to. So we can't just take things that could be worthwhile: we're looking for the solid gold links containing that people reading that article will want.

I have cleaned up the external links with a few changes:

  1. Removing the blog. I can see this is contested, but it's effectively an extension to the official site link. Hence, what's the point? Also, WP:EL states that blogs should be avoided (point 11).
  2. Cutting down the links to general review/information sites. There were too many. People aren't going to know where to go. If they already have a favourite, they can search for the film there. I left in imdb (because it has lots of information), metacritic (because it has links to lots of individual reviews) and rottentomatoes (because it has user's reviews).
  3. Removing link to youtube channel. Seems more like advertising than knowledge expansion.
  4. Removing interviews and individual reviews. There are hundreds; we can't list them all so why link any?
  5. Removing 2003 screenplay link. I don't feel comfortable sending readers to a download side full of adverts. And neither will they.
  6. Removing 1989 screenplay. Is that legal? If it is, sling it back in. But I didn't want to risk leaving it there.
  7. Removing concept art. Way too specific.

As ever with my EL cleanup, feel free to put some sites back in if you feel you have valid reason. It might be worth writing here what you did and why so that people can discuss it. Please don't just blindly revert my edit. I admit that I'm nothing of an expert on the subject, but that's good when tough decisions from an outsiders point of view need to be made.

Happy editing! — Greggers (t • c) 17:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

What the hell, man! I wanted to the read the previous scripts!!! (JoeLoeb (talk) 06:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC))
Yeh, and someone will want to look at concept art. Someone else will want a storyboard. Others will want to know how to contact the gaffer and key grip. We can't accommodate for everyone, so we aim to please the general audience. Specialist subjects and specifics can be found elsewhere. Greggers (t • c) 18:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Music Section - Koyaanisqatsi

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

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

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

hell

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

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

Reception balance

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

IMO, there should be an equal number of negative and positive reviews in the section, and sometimes it is best to intersperse them throughout each paragraph. In other words, if you find some people commenting primarily on the script, then include both a negative and positive side for the script. If you see people focusing on the casting, then try and include pos. and neg. opinions of that. If they exist. Sometimes each opinion focuses on something else, so you cannot do that. P.S. I removed the "fresh" because "fresh/rotten" is RT's personal assessment. We only use them as an aggregate counter of critic opinion, and critics don't assign "fresh" or "rotten" to their personal reviews.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Receptions sections are an odd thing because in some instances people will say it has to be equal whereas others say it should be SLIGHTLY more reflective of the response... I know they differ between films, games, music etc but is there a firm wiki guideline for film receptions please? Stabby Joe (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Per: WP:MOSFILMS, "To maintain a neutral point of view, it is recommended to quote a reasonable balance of these reviews. This may not always be possible or desirable (e.g. films that have been almost universally acclaimed or panned), and best judgment should again be used." - So, unless the film is 100% loved or hated, this should generally be easy to attain.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah good, now of course I would like a second opinion but as it stands its not balanced, IE a larger cons paragraph with the pro ending with another con. BTW the RT cream of the crop percentage keeps changing from 43 to 46%. I'm reading 46% but it keeps getting changed back, why? Stabby Joe (talk) 01:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
WWWW.RT vs. UK.RT is why. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
To expand on Erik's clarification of the numbers, we generally use the US Tomatoes site because it samples a larger portion of top critics, whereas the UK samples less and thus their numbers do not generally reflect the same level of representation (even though they list the same people) that the US numbers do.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Thats why I like wiki, you learn things lol! Anyway back to the original point. Stabby Joe (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

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

I would usually just edit it but gven the amount of people editting it, I don't want to start any warring. I'll add a pro comment from a non-US source for some balance perhaps? Stabby Joe (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Minor edit request

In the Reviews section the article cited from here [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)

Production

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

I think that's because there possibly isn't anything out (at the moment) covering the filming aspect of the movie. I'd suspect that the DVD will contain all of that information, and possibly some specific trade magazines might talk to the director/crew in future interviews before the DVD. But since no one is pushing this thing through a review of any sort right now, I don't think it's a dire issue with the page, and the page could probably pass GA's "broad coverage" criteria (though it will need to be addressed before any FAC).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
That makes perfect sense. Thank you. I've spent far too long reading text off of a monitor today and I am mentally exhausted; I should probably take a break. Some guy (talk) 05:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Soundtrack/score

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

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

Youth marketing

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

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

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

Suppose they made a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle/ Hannibal Lecter hybrid movie. In the previews/marketing we basically see Donatello and Michaelangelo coolly swinging their nunchaku while the camera pans around, then fade to R-rating. Now play that in theatres for several months and then release the movie; how far did that R rating go and who sat in that theatre? The marketing previews for this move were basically costumed superheros panning around in a cool environment, fading to an R-rating sign. Now, how does this dovetail with youth marketing issues? By the way, if you think frosted sugar bombs are for an obese 12 year old then _you_ are an idiot. 69.51.152.180 (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
This doesn't seem very important. It's a movie about superheroes; what else are trailers supposed to show? Most trailers seen on tv have a PG rating, so you won't get the violence in the movie. The film still has to sell itself, and this is done through flashy trailers. The responsibility lies on parents to know that this movie is not appropriate for children. P.gandal (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Black Freighter

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

There's always the possibility we could create a proper article for Tales of the Black Freighter as it appears in the comic and as its own film. Alientraveller (talk) 17:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
My thinking exactly when I saw that article - it would stop the repetition of content and could easily be made notable I'm sure. So my suggestion is: Move to Tales of the Black Freighter. (Emperor (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC))
Ta-dah. Sceptre (talk) 00:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
What about Tales of the Black Freighter (film)? —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Simplest thing would be to turn it into a redirect and merge in any content not already there with a note (and link) in the edit summary. We could merge the edit histories but it is probably not needed as long as we do that. (Emperor (talk) 05:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC))
I get making an article for the DVD, but there are some problems with making an article devoted to both the DVD and the bits from the Watchmen comics, as I have explained on the Tales of the Black Freighter talk page. Simply put, the DVD is a distinct document from the film; I can buy one and watch the other at the theatre. In regards to the source material, in Watchmen, Tales of the Black Freighter is more of a recurring motif that it's physically impossible to read separate from the story, given scenes and dialogue overlapp with the grreater narrative. Not to mention the content on the source material is wholly redundant to the subsection in Watchmen, where it is dealt with comprehesively without ned for spinning off. We only need an article for the DVD. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I think (Wesley; Erik) that you're confusing the reasoning for including (note: not "splitting") the comic on the sub-page. It doesn't make a difference that you can't read it separately (and you can, if you try hard!). The point is that there is a LOT of information about the Tales comic - real-world and in-world. In the comics themselves, the back-matter of one issue was devoted solely to Tales, providing it with a rich history in the Watchmen world (mixing real-world and W-world facts and psuedo-facts). The real world history is also well-documented (I wrote about Tales quite extensively, and much of that was cut when the comic's page was rewritten) - it echoes the fleeting EC pirate comics; Gibbons echoed Orlando (and then Orlando was able to produce a speculative page for the back-matter); it parallels Veidt's story (as suggested by third-parties and noted in at least two places by Moore). It was initially a very minor, passing thought that Gibbons had when the two were fleshing out the world and batting ideas back and forth - and Moore saw the potential and folded it in. Bernie, whose sole purpose is to read the comic counterpoint, has a name (almost-definitely echoing Krigstein, see Piracy) setting his character arc to be more poignant than if he were a nameless face in a crowd.
The Watchmen page would continue to have (considerable) information on Tales, but can also now have a "main" link to delve more deeply - a criticism of my spending more time talking about Tales was that it was not directly relevant. It would be on its own page. It certainly is NOT merely "a recurring motif," it's an essential counterpoint, a vital insight into a world that has real superheroes and a metafictional conceit par excellance. It may currently be "redundant to the subsection in Watchmen," but the point is surely then that it will not always be. Ultimately, the subsection in Watchmen will be a precis of the new page, which will be able to go into more detail about the purpose of this vital title - so vital that it has inspired droves of fans to search for back issues, and been considered several times as a spin-off title. The context of the comic is essential to understanding the DVD/cut film scenes; its entirely irrelevant (and obvious) what the purpose of the standalone release was to Snyder/Warner, but it is exceptionally important to set down why Tales is such an utterly crucial part of the Watchmen picture - and to give it the space it deserves, it needs its own page. ntnon (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
The "Tales of the Black Freighter" section can be spun off when there is enough content on the Watchmen article that it overwhelms that particular article. Don't spin off based on assumptions that there will be much, much more, especially because Watchmen was overhauled in a major way and should be considered pretty comprehensive already. Any additional information is probably not significant. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Country of Origin

[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.

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

Box office dropped 78%

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

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

Pronunciation of "Veidt"

"Because of the German-born depiction of Veidt, Goode pronounced his surname as "Vight"."

Isn't this how it is pronounced anyway, comic-book or otherwise? I can't get the cited link to open, but I am pretty sure it has always been pronounced "vight" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.118.44.226 (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I pronounced Veidt like "vague". :) Alientraveller (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I watched one of those Veidt comercials on youtube and they pronounced it as "Vight". --TFunk (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was pronounced "Vayt" with the 'ei' making an 'ay' sound —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.210.249 (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a german name. "Vight" is how you pronounce it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.118.44.226 (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Clean Up

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

I edited a little of the first couple paragraphs of the plot. Yes, yes, I know, I prefer the name "Crimebusters," too, but the movie also doesn't refer to each hero as "the Watchman Rorschach" or "the Watchman Dr. Manhattan," so I moved around some things in the plot summary. In the movie they are usually referred to as costumed vigilantes or masked adventurers, rather than as specifically "Watchmen team members." But the whole plot section needs to be cleaned up a bit more anyhow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.118.44.226 (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I [don’t] think it [is] filmable".

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

The original quote isn't in the correct tense, that is why there are bracketed words. Check the source. Moore says "didn't", not "don't", and "was", not "is". It doesn't fit the tense of the sentence it is being quoted it, thus why it was changed to "don't" and "is". The meaning is the same, just the tense changed. If the original quote was "I think it was filmable", than it would completely wrong for us to change what he said to sound like he meant something completely different.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
While I understand what BIGNOLE is getting at, the quote was potentially confusing for precisely the reason Kravitch mentioned. So I modified the style so we could use the original wording, and dispense with the brackets. The average reader should not have to check the source to clarify what he is reading. — trlkly 17:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Box Office "Disappointment"?

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

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

Just bouncing this off you guys.

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

Making note of what Warner Bros. had hoped would be important (remember, I was discouraging those IMDb "analysts"). I think we can probably summarize all of these up into a couple of sentences, and then move the statement made by the head of distribution to the end of this stuff (since his comments came afterward).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
You want to do it,  BIGNOLE ? I'm just a newbie, and I know I have huge issues being concise. :-) Or should we just wait to see what this weekend's B.O. holds? Briguy7783 (talk) 04:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
That's fine, but I have work in a little bit so I won't be able to do it till later on today.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
The movie is not a box office disappointment just because it didn't do The Dark Knight numbers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.118.44.226 (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

VFXWorld articles

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

Little nitpick

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 update needed

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)

Juspeczyk/Jupiter 2.0

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

Made it clear the first time. Making it clear again. Just for the record: In the Movie known as Watchmen, her name is Laurie Jupiter. I will now fix it again. 24.228.54.78 (talk) 03:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
The websites refer to her as Juspeczyk, though. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Characters' description

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)

Well the Comedian did ask HJ if he was getting off on punching him. 24.228.54.78 (talk) 01:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we can equate sadism with homosexuality... I would remove the reference - hooded justice barely makes an entrance in the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.10.223 (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
AFAIK you see him kissing Capt. Metropolis in the opening sequence. I'll have to watch the opener again, but AFAIK he is seen kissing or otherwise being close with Capt. Metropolis in the opening sequence. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone should delete "Interview with Paul Greengrass"

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

[Untitled section]

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

Box Office Stats - Irrelevent Rankings?

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

American Cinematographer published an article about Watchmen, which is available online. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Lee Iaccoca

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)

It was him. This article may be of interest. Don't know if it's worth including in the Wikipedia article. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
The article does not say that. It says it was an actor dressed up as him. Jokem (talk) 02:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
That's what I meant and thought what you meant. I was under the impression you were not sure if the character was Lee Iacocca or not. —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
No, it looked so much like him, I thought he might be playing himself in the film. Jokem (talk) 16:00, 10 May 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)

Wikilinks can occur in more than one section, but should not appear more than once in any given section. Given that anyone could jump to failed projects with the TOC then it is not unreasonable to have a wikilink there. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Revert

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.

— User_talk:68.148.149.184, Ckatz

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)

If a film has a cast table then you should remove it as it has been agreed they are not correct, you should not use mistakes in other articles to justify the insertion of incorrect formatting in to this article. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
You already have the answer, and you instead tried to change the MoS to fit your purposes, which has of course been reverted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Reverts

The quotes that have been reverted as they now stand does the article no good:

  1. they are unencyclopedic, [this is not a magazine]
  2. if you want the quotations in the article, they should be integrated into the article. The reader wants to know how the quote is pertinent to that article.

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)

Nothing unencyclopedic about them, from what I can see, and quotations do not have to be integrated into an article. Do you think those boxes exist just for fun? As you've been told repeatedly, go read the various MoS and actual learn from them rather than dismissing and trying to change them to your own personal preferences. You might also want to go read WP:BRD - you were bold, you made a change, it was reverted. You don't get to just keep doing it over and over. If you revert again, as the warning you were left indicates, you will be reported for blocking for edit warring.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Putting it up for GA nom

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)

I decided not to as I think me not being a major contributor it wouldn't make sense for me to do so should the article reviewer have any particular questions. However, on the face of it the article looks great - what are the chances of getting some people behind it and to nominate it? -- Harish (Talk) - 00:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe even FA? -- Harish (Talk) - 00:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Took some risks (even if I didn't edit that much) and nominated it. igordebraga ≠ 01:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Watchmen (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

? 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)

GA review (see here for criteria)

Lots of information, but it could stand some serious polishing.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    Inconsistent tense use--needs copyediting throughout. Keene Act should be linked once. "Home video" is an improbable name for that section's contents. Ersatz see also at the end of "Moore and Gibbons' involvement" is misplaced. Thomas Jane's mention in the casting section seems apropos of nothing. There's a lot of article to review here, but these are some of the more glaring issues.
    Done them, except the copyedit and the renaming - what do you think it's more appropriate?igordebraga ≠ 02:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
    "DVD releases" comes to mind for that section name, but anything along those lines would be fine. Jclemens (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
    Renamed, tried to fix some of the writing. igordebraga ≠ 03:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Citation needed tag in the "Home video" section. References could benefit from standardization.
    Done.02:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Differences between comic and movie receive little to no coverage, and some elements could probably be broken out in WP:SS to shorten the text to WP:LENGTH guidelines.
    Suggestions? igordebraga ≠ 02:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
    What to shorten... "Cast and characters" should be cut by 1/3-1/2, and any non-redundant, non-summary in-universe info moved into the Characters of Watchmen article. Development section looks like a good candidate for a spinout, since only part of the history is relevant to this successful release. Overall, there's a ton of great information in here, and WP:LENGTH is NOT a GA fail criterion, so you don't have to mess with this right away, but get more advice in peer review before an FAC. Jclemens (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
    Split Development (the article would break 100kb someday!), but I don't know anything else is needed. igordebraga ≠ 03:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Good job.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
    There's still an awful lot of folks adding to this. To be expected, I suppose, but most of the edits are not high quality.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Three images is pretty sparse. More free images would be nice, but this is adequate.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    On hold for one week for improvements to be addressed Jclemens (talk) 02:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
    As of now, you're headed in the right direction. I'll check back Saturday. Jclemens (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  8. If you go further on 1a problems and/or extend for one more week (copyedit requests take long nowadays) I'll do whatever I can. igordebraga ≠ 11:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
    I don't see a need. While there's work to do before this is ready for FAC, it's certainly a pass per these improvements. You might want to nominate the development article separately, see if you can get a good topic out of it. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Differences from the graphic novel...?

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)

Narration

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)

Music

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)

Director's Cut

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)

Poster

WTF? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.71.40 (talk) 13:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Significant scenes in the movie

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)

Trivial and only your view. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:14, 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)

Moore and Gibbons' involvement

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)

Rachel Maddow "review?"

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)


Rohrschach Unmasked

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)

Copyediting reverted?

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)

Definitely a huge improvement you made there Edgehawk. And that it was reverted without even the tiniest of explanations is borderline disrespectful towards the work you put in. --Kaizer13 (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Lede must have citatations: WP:LEADCITE

The introduction to this wikiarticle does not have any citations. This is in clear violation of WP:LEADCITE, which states:

Shortcut

Further information: Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources

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! — SpikeToronto 00:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Most, if not all, information in the lead will be repeated in the body. That's where the cites should be. Why repeat cites? That's what I've gathered. —Mike Allen 02:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Why repeat cites? the answer is given in the originating comment to this thread. The long and short of it that not doing so, when the lede is filled with so many details, so much specificity, is in violation of WP:LEADCITE and Wikipedia’s core policy, WP:V. The issue for me is that I do not want to do all the work of adding all of the cites to the specific details stated in the lede only to have the work reverted by someone who does not understand the policy statement at WP:LEADCITE. Thanks for following up! — SpikeToronto 03:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Then find the cites and dupe them, don't just tag the top of the article as the statements are not uncited within the article. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
The top of the article is not tagged. The section at the top of the article is tagged. That is why the tag used is {{Unreferenced section}} and not {{Unreferenced}} which, if used, would apply to the whole article. It is the section that is unreferenced, hence the {{Unreferenced section}} tag, which states: “This section does not cite any references or sources.” [Italics added.]

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! — SpikeToronto 18:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If you added the cites and another editor removed them then I would revert back to the cited version, which would also be tagged with an edit filter saying "references removed". But if you're not prepared to do the work then don't tag it, a sectional tag at the top of a page looks like a page tag to readers. If you think a specific claim in the intro does not have a ref within the body then us a {{cn}} tag on the claim. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Quibble

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)

Rorschach is called a vigilante and they take the law into their own hands, which is what a vigilante does. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Dr. Manhattan and The Comedian were both Government operatives. Rorschach is also arguably a nutcase and I would object to referring to the whole group as nutcases even though some of the others also act irrationally. Breaking R. out of prison and saving people from a burning building are not vigilante actions. Nitpyck (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Masks were outlawed, so putting a mask on breaks the law, and while The Comedian did government work he also beat protesters up for fun. Vigilantes is an easily understood out-of-universe term. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
He beat up protesters/rioters as part of his government job. Except for those working with the government and R. they all stopped using the masks. But Vigilantes is an easily understood out-of-universe term. makes sense so no change (in my opinion) is needed. Nitpyck (talk) 07:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Category: Post-apocalyptic films

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 GA

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)

Regarding "Development" in this article, it should be titled "Production" instead because development is one stage of the entire production cycle of a film. In addition, per WP:SPLIT, the section needs to be a summary section of Development of Watchmen. Since this is a Good Article and the sub-article is vying for Good Article status, I hope that the section can be rewritten to provide an overview of the sub-article. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


Fan-boys?

This doesn't seem very 'encyclopedic':

The fan-boy audience had mixed feelings about the change, thus there wasn't much of an uproar.

65.68.136.227 (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, but I would have written something more like "The fan-boy audience's reaction was largely mixed. Thankfully, as always, nobody cared." Mr Rubino (talk) 03:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Music - Sourcing Needed

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)

Removed material from Hooded Justice section

Removed the following lines:


Was involved in a sham relationship with the first Silk Spectre to hide his homosexuality. Later thought to be killed by The Comedian in the mid 1950s as revenge for stopping him from raping Silk Spectre.

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)

Cast Credits

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

Fact check?

From the article:

...the super powers of Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup) help the United States win the Vietnam War, resulting in President Richard Nixon (Robert Wisden) being repeatedly reelected into the 1980s.<ref name="Wright271">Wright, p. 271</ref>

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)

Also someone needs to fact-check Dr Manhattan's super-powers because they don't sound plausible either... Mezigue (talk) 08:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0409459/releaseinfo
  2. ^ http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/watchmen
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Watchmen_(2009_film)/Archive_1&oldid=1262235029"