ROTTEN TOMATOES: The Net Reacts to 25 Minutes of Watchmen Footage Comments

The Net Reacts to 25 Minutes of Watchmen Footage

by Jen Yamato | October 02, 2008

Summary

Did you miss your invitation to see 26 minutes of "Watchmen" footage in L.A. yesterday? Don't worry, plenty of web folks were there to share their impressions and bits of runtime and sequel talk -- including the news that what they saw is so good it "will make you require an adult diaper." Back to Article

(1-51 of 51 posts) | Reply

Kokushi writes:
on Oct 02 2008 11:30 AM

I never heard of Watchmen before and after seeing the trailer i became a fan, it looks great and i hope it shown next year.

(Reply to this)

ScytheofAzrael writes:
on Oct 02 2008 11:48 AM

Oh, man, I wish I could have seen it.
Sounds like the movie's shaping up to be amazing.

Little worried though, when they compared it to 300. 300 was good in visual effects and action, but lacked a bit in other areas. Meh, maybe Snyder will pull this off.

By the looks of it, it sounds like it's a hell of a ride.
March IS too far.

(Reply to this)

Elixor writes:
on Oct 02 2008 12:04 PM

It's looking pretty amazing so far. If this turns out as good as reports like this are saying, I'm going to be stoked. It remains to be seen if the story comes out right. I hope it does, would be a shame if it doesn't.

(Reply to this)

jarbuckl writes:
on Oct 02 2008 12:29 PM

I'm so freaking pumped. The opening credits alone seem worth the price of admission.

Good start.

(Reply to this)

jokerboy1991 writes:
on Oct 02 2008 01:39 PM

In reply to this comment (#2057959)
You cant call yourself a fan if u have not read the book u fool! Amazing book, the footage sounds amazing. I still don'
t think it could really be Watchmen if it was under 2 hours and 40 minutes.

(Reply to this)

reavus4983 writes:
on Oct 02 2008 02:12 PM

I really wanted to read this book but, call me shallow, the art seemed pretty dated for me, so after about 5 considerations actually holding the book in my hand, I still have not bought it for that reason. So can somebody assure me: is it good enough to warrant 20 bucks and a few hours of my time? Aside from that, the trailer looks very good. Hopefully it has the substance that 300 didn't have room for.

(Reply to this)

knowingtoast85 writes:
on Oct 02 2008 02:30 PM

As with Citizen Kane, to appreciate Watchmen you have to understand what comics were before it, and what they became after it.

Even with that in mind, however, I think Watchmen stands on its own as one of the most thought-provoking, troublesome and immersive books I've ever read.

Well, that and The Dirt, which was *****ing rad as sh*t.

(Reply to this)

jokerboy1991 writes:
on Oct 02 2008 02:51 PM

In reply to this comment (#2058324)
The book is amazing! Read IT!

(Reply to this)

scarythecruel writes:
on Oct 02 2008 03:04 PM

Anyone that is interested in this movie really must read the book...there is nothing like it.
From the sounds of it they have the look of it totally down,
and the credits sound sweet, lol.
I also just hope against hope that they dont screw up the story.

(Reply to this)

Looselycult writes:
on Oct 02 2008 03:33 PM

I thought Watchmen was interesting and dense, but somewhat portentous. Don't get me wrong it's a very well thought out and well written comic, but it's almost confusing on purpose. It's almost as if Moore did this so he could prove how smart and above people he was when he wrote it. It reminded me of a lot of the self-important modern literary fiction of the 20th century like Pynchon or even Joyce where it likes to basks in it's own self reverential importance along with the genera's typical nihilism and left wing or should I say Anarchistic politics. It just left a bad taste in my mouth. Why do I get the feeling that I just attacked a sacred cow?

(Reply to this)

jpbresnihan writes:
on Oct 02 2008 03:35 PM

the cut right now is 2 hour 45 minutes. lets hope they dont cut it down anymore.

(Reply to this)

tekwar2001 writes:
on Oct 02 2008 03:55 PM

I just hope they can tie it all together like the Dude's rug lol. There is a lot of back story that is vital to the main story, I just get a feeling that the majority of viewers who think Beverly Hills Chihuahua and White Chicks were blockbusters might find this movie too smart for them.

Great book, you should read it if you haven't...it's like what toast said, it revolutionized the way comic books and graphic novels were made.

(Reply to this)

Jinjonator writes:
on Oct 02 2008 03:56 PM

What happened with whole thing between Fox and WB? I assume that's over?

If so, WOO! March needs to hurry up and get here already. And yeah, I hope they keep it 2 hours and 40 minutes.

(Reply to this)

rockclmbr6 writes:
on Oct 02 2008 04:23 PM

CAN'T WAIT. Honestly, I'm just so glad that it's getting good early reactions. The book is so good...and it seems like Snyder really knows what he's doing on this.

Will definitely see this in IMAX opening weekend.

(Reply to this)

Max Pendragon writes:
on Oct 02 2008 04:37 PM

In reply to this comment (#2058324)
Agreed with Jokerboy, the book is astoundingly amazing. It will change the way you read comics. The artwork is actually very good for its time and easy on the eyes. Don't let the artwork turn you off, it actually grows on ya after a while.

(Reply to this)

smartmoviekid writes:
on Oct 02 2008 04:46 PM

the book simply changed the entire method of comic book writing after its publishing in '85. its an absolute masterpeice..and i cannot wait for the film...the descripions sound like Watchmen could hold "Dark Knight"-like magnitude in the comic to film genre. I really do hope so..as i loved the book, i loved Dark Knight..and i can't wait for this FREAKIN MOVIE!!!!

(Reply to this)

whitey_mcwhite writes:
on Oct 02 2008 05:00 PM

To the guy who thought that the art looked dated: the art was done that way for a reason. The idea is that, unlike other comics that visualize what you are supposed to feel before you hit the frame, Watchmen lets you figure out what to feel by actually reading the story. Even the movie, which won't include the Black Freighter or the between chapter tie ins, won't be complete next to the novel.

If you won't read the novel, then you can't fully appreciate the movie, that's all there is to it. It's like being a fair weather fan to a sports team. And I guarrantee, when and if you do read it, you'll have to read it again. It's way too deep.

Having said that, I can't wait for this movie. I loved 300 despite the fact that it was shallow, but let's face it, so was the novel. Let's wait to see what Snyder does with deeper material. I think this is what he's been building to.

(Reply to this)

mouse_clicker writes:
on Oct 02 2008 05:01 PM

In reply to this comment (#2058324)
Firstly, the art seems dated because the whole thing is a subversion of the comic book genre. In other words, it's supposed to look that way. Secondly, the art is actually quite fantastic in a very subtle, reserved way. It's remarkably detailed in every single panel, and it is extremely cinematic in its use of layout, flow, and transitions. So just because it doesn't look like Jim Lee or Alex Ross, it's every bit their equal if not their superior.

Also, don't worry about substance. 300 had none because it was a tough guy macho fun ride, much like everything from Frank Miller recently. Alan Moore, on the other hand, packs far more content in his comics than I ever thought possible. It's absolutely absurd how intricate and complex Watchmen is, with its multitude of themes, allusions, motifs, subplots, back stories, etc. I would suggest reading the book once through to get a feel for it, then reading it a second time with the Annotated Watchmen guide (http://www.capnwacky.com/rj/watchmen.html). The guide points out every detail you should pay attention to, right down to how in the book's world, Heinz's slogan is "58 varieties" instead of "57 varieties."

(Reply to this)

HiFiRevival writes:
on Oct 02 2008 05:31 PM

In reply to this comment (#2058440)
portentous = pretentious

genera's = genre's

If you are going to rip a comic for being the things you claimed it was, you should at least be able to spell the words you use to rip it.

(Reply to this)

whitey_mcwhite writes:
on Oct 02 2008 05:38 PM

In reply to this comment (#2058529)
Now you're being pretentious. It's pretentious because Moore is pretentious, who you are shows in your work. Every artist is a tad pretentious, and what Moore was going for was the Moby Dick of comic book movies. So if you are trying to make the greatest of all comic book stories that reads deeper than your typical comic book story, then you can expect it to seem a tad pretentious.

(Reply to this)

jaxon1234 writes:
on Oct 02 2008 05:51 PM

I was one of the people who made fun of the very term "graphic novel" as a way for nerds to justify having a comic book fetish, and 'comic book' movies didn't do a lot for me. So I was reluctant to give Watchmen its due. Breaking down and actually reading The Watchmen was the best counter-intuitive decision I've made this year. That is the first time I've read anything in comic form that justified the term graphic novel. It was like reading real, classic American literature. Fully realized and satisfying with each and every page. From what it sounds like, they're taking great care to keep the movie in line with the book, so while we will lose stuff like The Freighter, I think what they can bring cinematically to the story will make this a blockbuster that could make The Dark Knight with his pedophile voice look like Daredevil.

(Reply to this)

Sputnik99 writes:
on Oct 02 2008 06:00 PM

Hmmm...Should I say this?

I don't think the Watchmen graphic novel is the masterpiece everyone says it is. I've read it, and without a doubt, it is the most unique and creative graphic novel I have ever read--and yes, I have read quite a few. But it was kind of dull. The shots I've seen of the movie look exactly like the book, but I can only hope that the movie ups the pace a bit, because the Watchmen isn't very exciting, although it is extremely well written.

My two cents.

(Reply to this)

Looselycult writes:
on Oct 02 2008 06:27 PM

HiFi thanks for the correction on genre and pretentious. Hey at least I got self-reverential and nihilism right (those are tricky ones).

Oh hey whitey you might want to look up the definition of pretentious (Wow I spelled it right this time!) it is not a positive definition. It means "Claiming or demanding a position of distinction or merit when it is unjustified." I think most people would say Moby Dick's merit of distinction was pretty justified. However I think you are correct about Moore he probably does fit that definition.

(Reply to this)

inxperienced_youth writes:
on Oct 02 2008 06:53 PM

comic book blah blah blah....this looks incredibly lame. You fanboys are annoying. Audiences could care less about bringing some artwork to the big screen. Audiences simply care about the story. Can the film stand on its own? And from the look of it, this film will not appeal to nearly as many people as dark knight....i gotta admit, just looking at those 3 pictures on this page (especially the guy with the cape punching that other dude) made me think this was a spoof! you people are seriously looking forward to this? incredibly cheesy. unforgivably cheesy. You'd have to be a die hard fan to wanna see this crap-

(Reply to this)

vader_of_vjun writes:
on Oct 02 2008 07:06 PM

In reply to this comment (#2058529)
I think he meant portentous. It's a real word.

(Reply to this)

Matanuki writes:
on Oct 02 2008 07:06 PM

In reply to this comment (#2058535)
Oliver Wendell Holmes observed that a word is but "the skin of a living thought." Who would have known, that one day the word 'pretentious' would be used on an RT thread carrying a positive connotation?! I thought I'd never see the day. Usually on here 'pretentious' is just used by every random poster and his grandmother as the four letter word of choice to describe everything and everyone that they don't like.

(Reply to this)

Salty Gritts writes:
on Oct 02 2008 07:15 PM

With every press release and every new little bit of information my hopes for this movie go up more and more.

(Reply to this)

Looselycult writes:
on Oct 02 2008 07:20 PM

inexperienced_youth: Wow! That's an interesting perspective. It is sort of a reality check for those of us who have read Watchman and can only see it through the visual lense of the comic. We have probably had it is so burned on our psyche within the comic medium visually for so long, that we are unable to look at it objectively. This might explain one of the reasons why Alan Moore doesn't think any of his work should be adapted to the screen. However I thought this same thing when I saw the trailer for Sin City and 300. I currently feel the same way now with the Spirit. But I have not read any of these books before I saw them on the screen. So you might want to keep an open mind.

(Reply to this)

whitey_mcwhite writes:
on Oct 02 2008 08:14 PM

In reply to this comment (#2058598)
I know the definition of pretentious, and any who makes art does it with the idea thinking they have something to say that other people will see it and see something different in their world. That is pretentious. Anytime you think that you know something someone else doesn't it's pretentious. I like Moore's work, but he does think he's better than most people. One bad experience turns him off from thinking that he can even influence someone from doing better later because he told it better the first time. I can tell you right now that Snyder would have had Moore on the set everyday taking his advice, but Moore wouldn't do it because he's too full of himself, that's pretentious. And saying that you're trying to make the greatest graphic novel of all time by comparing it to Moby Dick (which may be the best novel of all time, and wasn't written to be so) is pretentious.

(Reply to this)

whitey_mcwhite writes:
on Oct 02 2008 08:26 PM

In reply to this comment (#2058638)
Ah, Inexperienced-Youth, you really do live up to your name don't you! Since you know nothing of the graphic novel, you speak very much from an inexperience point of view. Had you read the novel you'd probably realize that Watchmen isn't really so much a comic as it is a novel, that was written with pictures and about superheroes. Other than that it features real people in real situations that have been given power that they shouldn't have, much like our politicians and a lot of our policemen. You wouldn't know that that's what it's referring to though unless you actually read the book though, would you? Had you read the book you would know that it's the anti-comic comic book. It's what gave future comic books perspective. The Dark Knight wouldn't be what it is unless Watchmen was what it was. The Watchmen was the first comic to look at "superheroes" as real people. One day you'll learn the lesson of not judging a book by it's cover, but at that point you'll be experienced!

(Reply to this)

whitey_mcwhite writes:
on Oct 02 2008 08:31 PM

In reply to this comment (#2058659)
An artist is at his best when he's pretentious! Someone who's pretentious thinks they can get away with anything, and so they will try, and doesn't care what other people think, they still think their version is the best and only. You can tell when someone doesn't think they are good to get away with anything, their work becomes watered down and doesn't deliver the message it should!

(Reply to this)

whitey_mcwhite writes:
on Oct 02 2008 08:33 PM

In reply to this comment (#2058686)
I can't speak about The Spirit, but you should read 300 and Sin City, you won't be let down!

(Reply to this)

jpbresnihan writes:
on Oct 02 2008 08:53 PM

i saw the trailer at the dark knight and was so confused and baffled that i went out to barnes and noble and picked it up to see what the fuss was about.

it lives up to the hype. the hype being its the greatest graphic novel of all time. at least that ive ever read. and yes ive read the dark knight returns.

(Reply to this)

RuinerxxSINCITY writes:
on Oct 02 2008 09:23 PM

In reply to this comment (#2058324)
I promise you that you will not be disappointed. I was lucky enough to borrow the original issues from a friend, with a promise to wear gloves while reading them. You really can't top reading a classic comic series, complete with the musty smell of aging paper. If my words don't assure you just think of this, these days people are paying up to $5,000 for the set of original pressings of the comic series. Now if people are dropping that kind of money on the series there has to be a little something special about it. When you compare five-grand to twenty bucks you really can't complain. Another great thing is that the story is layered to a point where you find something new with each reading.

(Reply to this)

RuinerxxSINCITY writes:
on Oct 02 2008 09:24 PM

In reply to this comment (#2058324)
I promise you that you will not be disappointed. I was lucky enough to borrow the original issues from a friend, with a promise to wear gloves while reading them. You really can't top reading a classic comic series, complete with the musty smell of aging paper. If my words don't assure you just think of this, these days people are paying up to $5,000 for the set of original pressings of the comic series. Now if people are dropping that kind of money on the series there has to be a little something special about it. When you compare five-grand to twenty bucks you really can't complain. Another great thing is that the story is layered to a point where you find something new with each reading.

(Reply to this)

JeffroSuperfly writes:
on Oct 02 2008 09:42 PM

Amazing story aside, lets not forget (and if this was mentioned I apologize, I didn't have time to read all the comments) that the book itself was first issued by DC as single books that ran from 1986-87. That means the book is over 20 years old...two years older in fact that Disney's "The Little Mermaid." Why do I make this comparison: think of how Disney was still animating their features and what they looked like at that time.

If Pixar had tried to do something like Wall-E back then, we would have had a movie that looked RADICALLY different from what it looked like today. If the art looks dated...well, it is. Taken in the context of it's release, however, it's still just as impressive as its literary content.

(Reply to this)

The_Duckling writes:
on Oct 02 2008 09:55 PM

wait im confused....I've read Watchmen like 4 times. did i like completely miss the fact that the Comedian shot JFK? or did snyder just add that in. Not that i don't like it, it adds a good little twist and shows the audience more about the character. But I was kinda shocked when I read about it on IGN. does anyone know anything about this?

(Reply to this)

Looselycult writes:
on Oct 03 2008 03:57 AM

Whitey: I have read "Watchman" twice. I have also read several great novels as well, and as you recall I didn't say that "Watchman" was bad aesthetically. I happen to not enjoy the particular style and world view in the genera of literature that Moore was writing in. Technically Watchman is very creative and written very proficiently. But I disagree with you when you say that great art/literature has to be pretentious. I think that is a myth foisted on us by the modern literary establishment. "Lord of the Rings" is great literature and there is not a bit of pretense or elitism in it.

(Reply to this)

Gimy writes:
on Oct 03 2008 06:07 AM

ok, STOP with the hype. you're pumpin' me up too much and movies hardly EVER live up to it. 300 did, and TDK went above expectations. but thats like 2 out of what...a bajillion? and please end the "it's gonna be like TDK!" stuff. that sounds as stupid as every comic book movie made AFTER Begins saying "we're trying to do what Begins did with batman" "we're going to be like Batman Begins" and it turned out to be boring-average.

i love the 2:43 time. to me, if a movie is good...it's worth it to sit there that long. i've seen the trailer numerous times and it looks like it's going to be one of the best(and biggest) movies of next year. but really, why would you want to see more than the trailer(25 minutes?) without seeing the whole movie? thats like gettin' a bj and she stops right before ya shoot. gimme the whole thing...or nothing at all.

(Reply to this)

mungmung writes:
on Oct 03 2008 07:12 AM

In reply to this comment (#2058324)
Well, I'll just mention the fact that it was the only comic book on the Time Magazine's list of 100 best novels of the 20th Century.

(Reply to this)

mouse_clicker writes:
on Oct 03 2008 09:36 AM

In reply to this comment (#2058801)
That's not a very good comparison, though. For one, there was already some fantastic art in comics loooong before the modern age. A lot of it, actually was in the comic strips, and not just Will Eisner's stuff, but things like Krazy Kat and Pogo as well. Dave Gibbons and Alan Moore very deliberately chose Watchmen's art style, and I should think that if they were to write the novel again today, they'd choose the same art style because it's what fits the story.

And for two, The Little Mermaid STILL looks great. In fact, go back and watch some really old Disney movies. Watch Sleeping Beauty or especially Bambi. It's insane how extremely well animated those movies look even today. I doubt you were trying to make this implication, but mentioning Wall-E and The Little Mermaid the way you did implies that computer animation is inherently "better" than 2D. And I would have to disagree with that...

(Reply to this)

hevlarxis writes:
on Oct 03 2008 11:25 AM

In reply to this comment (#2058324)
You could always get it from your local library. That's where I got it. Now that I've read it though, I want to buy it.

(Reply to this)

hevlarxis writes:
on Oct 03 2008 11:51 AM

I'm think I'll start a new drinking game. I'm gonna come onto the RT forums and every time someone says pretentious, I'll take a shot. I may actually die from alcohol poisoning.

(Reply to this)

ledawg writes:
on Oct 03 2008 06:30 PM

True hev, but I'd like to say this may be one of the best movies ever, OR THE DISSAPOINTMENT OF THE CENTURY! POTC: Dead Man's Chest I loved, but critics saw the built up for a year and said in advance "This can't be that good." But audiences liked it, and it made 1 billion dollars (est.) so it satisfied the intended audience. If "Watchmen" turns out like that, fine by me! WOOF!

(Reply to this)

Floor Man writes:
on Oct 04 2008 12:55 AM

Holy ****.

YES!

(Reply to this)

killermonkey8822 writes:
on Oct 04 2008 01:02 AM

the graphic novel is excellent! and i was ****ting my pants when i saw the trailer for this in theaters!.... it better be amazing, or Zack Synder is gonna wake up one morning and see that his house is on fire

(Reply to this)

akatsuki writes:
on Oct 04 2008 07:11 AM

The only thing i'm concerned about, is its rating. Hell, i'm only 16 this year and not even 17 when watchmen comes out. In my country, it will definitely be Matured 18 which means only 18 years and above can watch it, believe mainly due to the sexual scenes i believe it will have(since it appears in the comic). I just can't wait for the DVD to come out, can't even wait for it to come out.

Seriously, the comic is deep, i have to read several times to understand it better, perhaps due to my age. But it is the most powerful and frightening graphic novel i read, esp. the rorschach's story, scared me to hell. Very thought provoking. I want to watch the Watchmen!!!!

(Reply to this)

gm1200 writes:
on Oct 04 2008 09:54 PM

Bottom line...if you never read Watchmen...expect to hate the movie.

Its high place amongst comic fandom is based on the fact that it was among the first storylines to show superheroes as extremely flawed...as opposed to Marvel's knack for showing them as human but still basically good.

Others have done it since...and better...so most of the hype over this book is a matter of nostalgia from fanboys.

Still...not a bad book...and potentially a decent movie...but most everyone will absolutely hate the end...so don't get your hopes up.

(Reply to this)

ledawg writes:
on Oct 06 2008 06:01 PM

No, gm you don't have to always read the source matrieal. If anything it might ruin the expierence.

(Reply to this)

toneelschrijver writes:
on Oct 07 2008 11:15 PM

In reply to this comment (#2058598)
"at least I got self-reverential and nihilism right"
Sorry to disappoint you. Just a 50% score there. It should read self-referential. (It's related to the verb "to refer" and has nothing whatsoever to do with reverence.) As Jimmy Joyce once wrote: "I opened the window and influenza."

(Reply to this)

rachel_renegade writes:
on Oct 28 2008 10:39 PM

In reply to this comment (#2058275)
Jokerboy, because of your enthusiasm about Watchmen, i decided to buy it. I bought a Tuesday afternoon and finished it the next night. Its mind-blowing. Its THE best book i have ever read, and i am reading it again. But, Ive gotten so hyped for the movie, and i have to wait till March. But thank you.

(Reply to this)

Related Links

Watchmen

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links