Gotta agree with Spooky2k, though... Other than the fact that people think it makes them look cool to hate on just about every movie, I don't know why everyone is so hard on this flick. It's probably as good as we could have ever gotten. We could've been given another Fantastic Four or X-Men/Wolverine... we should be grateful we didn't.

If I wanted to read the comic, I would READ THE COMIC... not have it read to me. The motion comic was a glorified book-on-tape.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =WEeqHj3Nj2c

Snyder, Moore and Gibbons may has stretched it a little but, is someone was a truly dedicated nutcase that wanted to turn themselves into a "superhero",had some natural athletic ablity, dedicated themselves to building up their body, learning marshal arts and gymnastics they could make themselves pretty formidable.

I felt Hollis' death and Dan's reaction was one of the omissions I missed most. I mean, why even include Hollis' first scene if you're not gonna have the payoff?

But second language or not, saying essentially "Snyder is a big poop-head and shouldn't be making movies," is not useful film criticism. It's troll flame bait. Sure... "THIS. IS. TALKBACK!" and all that (never a more appropriate use for that meme than a Snyder TB), but if you want to have an actual DEBATE about the relative merits of Watchmen, the kiddie insults are nothing but detrimental. Surely that isn't a nuance lost in the translation?

And Asimov, hacks are lazy. Snyder is not. Therefore, Snyder is not a hack. Jeez.

Any tb'ers done this before? (watched an extended cut of a movie prior to the original) How'd it play?

STAR TREK, THE ROCK, WATCHMEN, BEOWULF, T4, TOMBSTONE are all 'despised bullshit' in the world of Asimov.

Luckily the rest of us do not live in that world.

= Portugal!

SO WE PROMOTE FOR HIM.

aintitbalenews.com

My wife is even more enthusiastic.

as the geek...

who renamed S.H.I.E.L.D. for Gruenwald.

Everyone knows the Portuguese have terrible taste in movies.

I keed, I keed. Don't you dare take that seriously, you big weirdo.

My response: Go blow it out your...uh, blowgun.

That said, there will never be a better use of 99 Luftballoons in a film. That was a stroke of genius right there.

Chill dude.

Which I have no idea of how to do.

The one track with all the sex noises (forget title but blakindigo will know)? Playing in the lobby of a four-screen theater in Arkansas?

Fucking hilarious.

Sorry, can't do youtube at work. Could you tell me what that link is please?

I'll be your best friend.

you can try to blast me all you want but Hendrix OWNS all along the watchtower

i even think i recall dylan saying something along those lines.

Though, anything else > shitty My Chemical Romance cover.

it ruled, accept it.

Proposals for fifth film:

Superman: The New Movie

After the failure of Superman IV: The Quest for Peace, Cannon Films considered producing a fifth film with Albert Pyun as director. Financial troubles resulted in the film rights reverting back to Ilya and Alexander Salkind.[6] Salkind wrote the story for Superman V (also known as Superman: The New Movie) with Superboy writers Cary Bates and Mark Jones in the early-1990s.[1] The story had Superman dying and resurrecting in the shrunken, bottled Krypton city of Kandor. The premise of Superman's death and rebirth coincidentally predated The Death of Superman. Salkind, Bates and Jones developed two drafts of the script, with Christopher Reeve set to reprise the leading role.

Superman Reborn

"In any good Superman movie, the fate of the whole planet should be at stake. You've got to have villains whose powers and abilities demand that Superman (and only Superman) can be the one who stops them. That's the only way to make the movie exciting and a dramatic challenge." ——Writer Jonathan Lemkin on writing Superman Reborn. Upon viewing the success of The Death of Superman comic storyline, Warner Bros. bought the film rights of Superman from the Salkinds in early 1993, handing the project to producer Jon Peters. The studio decided to not continue with the Salkind, Bates and Jones script for Superman: The New Movie. Peters hired Jonathan Lemkin to write the script. Lemkin cited the project as both a mainstream and family film, claiming he was primarily advised to perform the script in a style for the new teenage generation of the 1990s, and making it toyetic. Major toy companies insisted on seeing Lemkin's screenplay before the deadline of the American International Toy Fair.

Lemkin's script, titled Superman Reborn, featured Lois Lane and Clark Kent with relationship troubles that are only resolved after Superman's battle with Doomsday. When he professes his love to her, his life force jumps between them, just as he dies, giving Lois a virgin birth. Their child, who grows 21-years-old in three weeks, becomes the resurrected Superman, and saves the world. Warner Bros. did not like the script because of similar underlying themes with Batman Forever.

Peters brought Gregory Poirier, his collaborator on Rosewood, to rewrite the script. Poirer's December 1995 script had Brainiac creating Doomsday, infused with "Kryptonite blood". Superman has romance problems with Lois Lane, and visits a psychiatrist. Superman is killed by Doomsday, and an alien named Cadmus, a victim of Brainiac, steals his corpse. Superman is resurrected and teams with Cadmus to defeat Brainiac. Powerless, Superman wears a robotic suit that mimics his old powers until he can learn to use his powers again on his own, which, according to the script, are a mental discipline called "Phin-yar", a concept similar to The Force. Other villains included Parasite and Silver Banshee.[6] Poirier's script impressed Warner Bros.,[8] but Kevin Smith was hired to rewrite.[9] Smith thought Poirier's script did not respect the Superman comic book properly.

Superman Lives Teaser poster that premiered at American International Toy Fair in 1997,[6] designed by Sylvain Despretz[

Kevin Smith pitched to Jon Peters his story outline in August 1996, in which Peters gave him permission to write a screenplay. However, Peters presented Smith with three rules, such as wanting Superman to wear an all-black suit,[7] feeling the more traditional suit was "too faggy"; not wanting to see Superman fly,[7] saying that Superman would "look like an overgrown Boy Scout."[6] (In order to deal with this, Smith wrote Superman flying as "a red-and-blue blur in flight, creating a sonic boom every time he flew."[10]); and have Superman fight a giant spider in the third act. Smith accepted the terms, realizing that he was being hired to execute a pre-ordained idea.[7] Peters and Warner Bros. forced Smith to write a scene involving Brainiac fighting polar bears at the Fortress of Solitude, and Peters wanted Brainiac to give Lex Luthor a space dog, stating "Chewie's cuddly, man. You could make a toy out of him, so you've got to give me a dog."[9] Smith claims this was because of the recent re-release of the original Star Wars trilogy, and claims that Peters wanted Brainiac's robot assistant L-Ron to be voiced by Dwight Ewell, calling him, "a gay R2-D2 with attitude."[9] Peters was able to recycle his giant spider idea in Wild Wild West, a film he produced.

Smith's draft (titled Superman Lives) had Brainiac sending Doomsday to kill Superman, as well as blocking out the sun to make Superman powerless, as Superman is fueled by sunlight. Brainiac teams with Lex Luthor, but Superman is resurrected by a Kryptonian robot, The Eradicator. Brainiac wishes to possess The Eradicator and its technology. Powerless, the resurrected Superman is sheathed in armor formed from The Eradicator itself until his powers return, courtesy of sunbeams, and defeats Brainiac.[10] Smith's casting choices included Ben Affleck as Clark Kent / Superman, Linda Fiorentino as Lois Lane, Jack Nicholson as Lex Luthor, Famke Janssen as Mercy, John Mahoney as Perry White, David Hyde Pierce as The Eradicator, Jason Lee as Brainiac and Jason Mewes as Jimmy Olsen. Affleck would later play George Reeves of the Adventures of Superman in Hollywoodland.

Robert Rodriguez was offered the chance to direct, but turned down the offer due to his commitment on The Faculty, despite liking Smith's script.[7] Smith originally suggested Tim Burton to direct his script,[9] and Burton signed on with a pay or play contract of $5 million and the studio set the theatrical release date in the summer of 1998, the 60th anniversary of the character's debut in Action Comics.[8] Nicolas Cage, a comic book fan, signed on as Superman with a $20 million pay or play contract, feeling he could "re-conceive the character."[7] Peters felt Cage could "convince audiences he [Superman] came from outer space."[12] Burton stated it would be "the first time you would believe that nobody could recognize Clark Kent as Superman, he [Cage] could physically change his persona."[13] Kevin Spacey was approached for the role of Lex Luthor,[13] while Tim Allen claimed he was in talks for Brainiac[14] (a role heavily considered for Jim Carrey).[9] Courteney Cox was reported as a casting possibility for Lois Lane, while Smith confirmed Chris Rock was set for Jimmy Olsen.[14] Michael Keaton confirmed his involvement, but when asked if he would be reprising his role as Batman (as he had done in Burton's Batman and Batman Returns), he would only reply, "Not exactly."[15] Industrial Light & Magic was set for work on special effects.[7]

Design for the Superman suit by James Carson and Sylvain Despretz[7]

It was announced in April 1997 that filming would begin early-1998.[16] That June, Superman Lives entered pre-production,[7] with an art department employed under production designer Rick Heinrichs.[13] Burton decided to hire Wesley Strick to completely rewrite Smith's script. In return, Smith was overtly disappointed: "The studio was happy with what I was doing. Then Tim Burton got involved, and when he signed his pay-or-play deal, he turned around and said he wanted to do his version of Superman. So who is Warner Bros. going back to? The guy who made Clerks, or the guy who made them half a billion dollars on Batman?"[7] When Strick read Smith's script, he was annoyed with the fact that "Superman was accompanied/shadowed by someone/something called The Eradicator."[7] He also felt that "Brainiac's evil plot of launching a disk in space to block out the sun and make Superman powerless was reminiscent of an episode of The Simpsons, with Mr. Burns doing the Brainiac role."[7] However, after reading The Death and Return of Superman, Strick claimed he understood some of the elements of Smith's script. Strick's rewrite featured Superman questioning his existence and abilities, thinking of himself to be an outsider on Earth. Superman is threatened by Brainiac and Lex Luthor, who later amalgamate into "Lexiac," described by Strick as "a schizo/scary mega-villain."[7] Superman is later resurrected by the power of 'K,' a natural force representing the spirit of Krypton, as Superman defeats Lexiac.

Art designer Sylvain Despretz claimed the art department was assigned to create something that had little or nothing to do with the Superman comic book. Despretz also claimed that Peters "would bring kids in, who would rate the drawings on the wall as if they were evaluating the toy possibilities. It was basically a toy show!"[7] Peters saw a cover of National Geographic, containing a picture of a skull, going to art department workers, telling them he wanted the design for Brainiac's space ship to have the same image. Burton gave Despretz a concept drawing for Brainiac, which Despretz claims was "a cone with a round ball on top, and something that looked like a emaciated skull inside. Imagine you take Merlin's hat, and you stick a fish bowl on top, with a skull in it."[7] Concept artist Rolf Mohr claimed he designed a suit for The Eradicator for a supposed scene when he turns into a flying vehicle.

"We got the Kevin Smith script, but we were told not to read it, because they knew he wasn't going to stay on the movie. So we used Kevin Smith's script as a guide to the sets we might be doing, and we waited and waited for the new script to come in, but it never did."

——Art designer Sylvain Despretz on designing Superman Lives.

Burton chose Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania as his primary filming location for Metropolis,[7] while sound stages were reserved[7] but start dates for filming were pushed back.[8] A minor piece of the Krypton set was constructed but then destroyed, and Cage had even attended a costume fitting.[18] The studio was considering changing the title Superman Lives back to Superman Reborn.[19] The film's escalating budget (which went from $100 million to $190 million) forced Warner Bros. to ultimately put the film on hold in April 1998, and Burton left to direct Sleepy Hollow.[8] At this point in production, $30 million was spent, with nothing to show for it.[7] To this day, Burton has depicted the experience of Superman Lives as one of the worst experiences in his life, citing various differences with Peters and the studio, stating, "I basically wasted a year. A year is a long time to be working with somebody that you don't really want to be working with."

Aftermath

Warner Bros. enlisted the aid of Dan Gilroy to rewrite Wesley Strick's script as a means to lower the $190 million budget, which he brought down to $100 million. However, Warner Bros. was still less willing to heavily move forward on production, due to financial reasons with other film properties,[21] having Gilroy turn in two drafts.[22] Disappointed by the lack of progress on the film's production, aspiring screenwriter/comic book fan Alex Ford was able to have a script of his (titled Superman: The Man of Steel) get accepted at the studio's offices in September 1998. Ford pitched his idea for a film series consisting of seven films, and his approach impressed Jon Peters and Warner Bros., though he was later given a farewell due to creative differences.[6] On the experience, Ford quoted, "I can tell you they don't know much about comics. Their audience isn't you and me who pay $7.00. It's for the parents who spend $60 on toys and lunchboxes. It is a business, and what's more important, the $150 million at the box office or the $600 million in merchandising?"[

With Gilroy's script, Peters offered the director's position to Ralph Zondag,[7] Michael Bay, Shekhar Kapur and Martin Campbell though they all turned down the offer.[6] Brett Ratner turned down the option in favor of The Family Man.[23] In addition, The Hollywood Reporter claimed Simon West and Stephen Norrington being top contenders.[24] In June 1999, William Wisher Jr. was hired to write a new script, approaching Nicolas Cage on story elements.[25] Cage dropped out of the project entirely in June 2000,[26] while Wisher turned in a new script in August 2000, reported to have contained similar elements with The Matrix.[6] In October 2000, Comic book veteran Keith Giffen pitched a 17-page story treatment with Lobo as the main villain, but the studio did not proceed with further involvement.[7] Oliver Stone was then approached to direct Wisher's script, but declined,[6] while in April 2001, The Hollywood Reporter revealed Paul Attanasio was hired to completely start on a new script, earning a salary of $1.7 million.[7] Around this time, Jon Peters offered Will Smith the role of Superman, but Smith turned it down over ethnicity concerns.

[edit] Batman vs. Superman

Although it was widely reported that McG had become attached to Paul Attanasio's script, in February 2002, J. J. Abrams was hired to write a new screenplay. It would ignore The Death of Superman storyline, and instead, it would reboot the film series with an origin story,[28] going under the title of Superman: Flyby.[6] The project had gone as far as being greenlit, but McG stepped out in favor of Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle.[29] The studio approached Wolfgang Petersen to direct Abrams' script,[30] however, in August of 2001,[31] Andrew Kevin Walker pitched Warner Bros. an idea titled Batman vs Superman, attaching Peterson as director. Abrams' script was put on hold,[30] and for reasons unknown, Akiva Goldsman was hired to rewrite Walker's draft which was codenamed "Asylum".

Goldsman's draft (dated June 21, 2002), had the premise of Bruce Wayne trying to shake all of the demons in his life after his five year retirement of crime fighting. Meanwhile, Clark Kent is down on his luck and in despair. Dick Grayson, Alfred Pennyworth and Commissioner Gordon are all dead and Clark has just recently divorced Lois Lane. Clark serves as Bruce's best man at his wedding to the beautiful and lovely Elizabeth Miller. After Elizabeth is killed by the Joker at the honeymoon, Bruce is forced to don the Batsuit once more, tangling a plot which involves Lex Luthor, while Clark sways with a romance with Lana Lang in Smallville.[33]

Peterson had mentioned Matt Damon when stating what type of an actor he was looking for either of the two roles.[32] Inspired by Tobey Maguire's performance in Spider-Man (2002), Peterson was searching for actors who "can really act and give complexity and emotions, but would have the fun of being a great superhero and maybe pump up a little bit." Johnny Depp, Colin Farrell, James Franco, Jude Law and Paul Walker were reported to be Warner Bros.' choices as Batman and Superman.[30] Christian Bale was approached to portray Batman, both in Batman vs Superman and Batman: Year One (but preferred Aronofsky's script for Year One),[34] while Josh Hartnett was offered the role of Superman.[29]

Filming was to start in early 2003, with plans for a five to six month shoot. The release date was set for the summer of 2004.[35] Batman vs Superman was to relaunch both the Batman and Superman franchises respectively, with both sequels being reboots.[30] Within a month of the studio green lighting the project, Peterson left in favor of Troy.[32] Warner Bros. could have easily assigned a new director, but chose to cancel Batman vs Superman in favor of a recent script submitted by Abrams for Superman: Flyby.[32] Peterson still has expressed interest in directing the project sometime in the future (with Bale as Batman),[36] as has Bryan Singer.[37] In the opening scene of I Am Legend, a large banner displays the Batman symbol within the Superman symbol in Times Square. It is meant as an in-joke by writer Akiva Goldsman, who wrote scripts for Batman vs. Superman and I Am Legend.

Superman: Flyby

Turning in his script in July 2002, J. J. Abrams' Superman: Flyby movie was an origin story that included Krypton besieged by civil war between Jor-El and his corrupt brother, Kata-Zor. Jor-El launches infant Kal-El to Earth, thinking he would fulfill a certain prophecy and Jor-El is sentenced to prison. Kal-El is adopted by Jonathan and Martha Kent, and later forms a romance with Lois Lane in college, and at the Daily Planet. However, Lois is more concerned with exposing Lex Luthor, written as a government agent obsessed with UFO phenomena. Clark reveals himself to the world as Superman, bringing Kata-Zor’s son, Ty-Zor, and three other Kryptonians to Earth. Superman is defeated and killed, and visits Jor-El (who committed suicide on Krypton while in prison) in Kryptonian heaven. He's resurrected and defeats the four Kryptonians, while the script ends with Superman off to Krypton, leaving a cliffhanger for a sequel.

Brett Ratner signed to direct in September 2002, originally expressing an interest in casting an unknown for the lead role, while filming was to start sometime in late 2003.[39] Ratner approached Josh Hartnett and Jude Law as Superman, but conceded that finding a famous actor for the title role had proven difficult because of contractual obligations to appear in sequels. "No star wants to sign that, but as much as I've told Jude and Josh my vision for the movie, I've warned them of the consequences of being Superman. They'll live this character for 10 years because I'm telling one story over three movies and plan to direct all three if the first is as successful as everyone suspects."[40] Hartnett was offered $100 million for a three-picture deal, but turned down the offer.[41] Although Superman: Flyby was being met with a budget exceeding $200 million (not including money spent on Superman Reborn, Superman Lives and Batman vs. Superman), the studio was still adamant for a summer 2004 release date.[29] Christopher Walken was in negotiations for Perry White, while Ratner expressed an interest in casting Anthony Hopkins as Lex Luthor, and Ralph Fiennes as Jor-El (two of his cast members in Red Dragon).

Christopher Reeve was to be a project consultant, citing Tom Welling, who portrayed the teenage Clark Kent in Smallville as an ideal candidate. Reeve added "the character is more important than the actor who plays him, because it is an enduring mythology. It definitely should be an unknown."[43] In addition Paul Walker was offered the role,[6] while Ashton Kutcher screen tested[40] and Brendan Fraser and Matthew Bomer auditioned.[29] Kutcher decided not to accept the role, citing scheduling conflicts with That '70s Show and the well noted Superman Curse as well as typecasting. Jerry O'Connell expressed interest for the role,[44] while David Boreanaz auditioned, but dropped out due to scheduling conflicts with Angel. Victor Webster did an entire screentest that included wardrobe as both Clark Kent and Superman.[45] Joel Edgerton (who turned down the chance to audition as Superman) auditioned for Ty-Zor, before Ratner dropped out of the project in March 2003, blaming casting difficulties,[46] and violent disagreements with Jon Peters.

McG returned as director, while Fraser expressed interest, but had fears of typecasting.[48] Selma Blair was in talks for Lois Lane,[49] while ESC Entertainment was hired for visual effects work, with Kim Libreri as visual effects supervisor and Stan Winston designing a certain "prototype suit".[50] McG approached Shia LaBeouf for Jimmy Olsen, with an interest to cast an unknown for Superman, Scarlett Johansson as Lois Lane and Johnny Depp for Lex Luthor.[51] Neal H. Moritz and Gilbert Adler were set to produce the film. McG also commissioned Josh Schwartz to do a "polish" of the Abrams script. He wanted to shoot in Canada, which would have cost $25 million more than WB's preferred Oz locale. McG shot test footage with several candidates, including Jason Behr, Henry Cavill and Jared Padalecki.[41] McG dropped out of directing, blaming budgetary concerns and filming locations. McG opted to shoot in New York City and Canada, but Warner Bros. wanted Sydney, Australia. McG felt "it was inappropriate to try to capture the heart of America on another continent."[52] He later admitted it was his fear of flying.[53] Abrams lobbied for the chance to direct his script.[54] However, in July 2004, Bryan Singer replaced McG as director, resulting in Superman Returns.[55] Further information: Superman Returns#Production

[edit] Revival

[edit] Superman Returns

Main article: Superman Returns

Bryan Singer, a self-described childhood fan of the original Superman, directed Superman Returns. Following the departure of Ratner and McG, Bryan Singer, who was said to be a childhood fan of Richard Donner's film, was approached by Warner Bros. He accepted, abandoning two films already in pre-production, X-Men: The Last Stand (which, ironically, would come to be directed by Ratner) and a remake of Logan's Run. Singer's story tells of Superman's return to Earth following a five year search for survivors of Krypton. He discovers that in his absence Lois Lane has given birth to a son and become engaged. Singer chose to follow Donner's lead by casting relatively unknown Brandon Routh as Superman, who resembled Christopher Reeve somewhat, and more high profile actors in supporting roles, such as Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor. Singer brought his entire crew from X2 to work on the film. Although Superman Returns received positive reviews, Warner Bros. and Legendary Pictures were somewhat disappointed by the film's box office return.[56] In the words of Warner Bros. President Alan F. Horn, "I thought it was a very successful movie, but I think it should have done $500 million worldwide. We should have had perhaps a little more action to satisfy the young male crowd."

2. Rorschach is seen on TV as Dan is leaving Hollis. Hollis comments "It didn't stop him" (referring to the Keane act).

3. Additional overhead shot of Dan walking home after leaving Hollis’ which features a Nostalgia billboard.

3. Additional shot of Dan opening the door to his basement to talk with Rorschach downstairs.

4. More Rorschach’s journal monologue once Rorschach leaves Dan.

5. The line, “Possible homosexual … must investigate further” is added while Rorschach is infiltrating the military base to find Dr. Manhattan and Laurie.

6. Two figures are seen sitting in a car watching Laurie once she gets into a taxi after leaving dinner with Dan; understood to be a government escort.

7. Rorschach retrieves his costume from where he left it and comes upon a mugging in an alley.

8. An additional continuous shot which goes from giant Dr. Manhattan to the Comedian riding in one of the helicopters, which then lands. The scene continues with the Comedian flaming the enemy soldier.

9. A new shot of Kovacs walking past the entire funeral procession for the Comedian.

10. The Watchmen’s (Crimebusters’) initial meeting has a longer beginning which features Dr. Manhattan’s teleportation of himself and Jenny Slater.

11. A longer protesting crowd sequence before the Comedian jumps out of the Owlship to intervene violently.

12. The procession out of the cemetery is extended; Moloch is shown to be leaving flowers on the Comedian’s tomb.

13. Dan and Laurie entering the alley is introduced with a brief shot of the newspaper stand with Seymour, Kovacs, and the vendor interacting. (Hopefully more of this in the Ultimate Cut coming in Dec.)

14. Jon teleports everyone else out of the television studio rather than himself.

15. The sequence with Dan and Laurie post-alley fight is extended.

16. Dan’s second beer session with Hollis is shown.

17. A least one additional shot added to Dr. Manhattan’s history montage; particularly one of him turning a missile into leaves. Also added, "The boys in marketing wanted me to have a symbol. I said if I should have a symbol it shall be one I respect."

18. A long sequence is added where Laurie is interrogated by government officials after Dr. Manhattan has vanished, during which she has a flash back to interacting with the comedian for the first time (the same scene she flashes back to while on Mars with Dr. Manhattan which makes her realize the identity of her father).

19. Nixon’s first war room scene is significantly longer (“I’ll say when doomsday is approaching!”).

20. Laurie’s interrogation continues; Dr. Manhattan is discovered to be on Mars. Laurie escapes from custody.

21. Additional Rorschach monologue after Dan and Laurie leave the dinner.

22. A large pair of tits is seen on a magazine cover while Rorschach is searching through Chess’ apartment.

23. Slight additions to Rorschach’s capture at Moloch’s apartment.

24. Extended dialogue between Kovacs/Rorschach and Dr. Malcom. The sequence where Rorschach kills the child murder is slightly longer.

25. More dialogue between Dan and Laurie while in the Owl basement before she tries on the Owl goggles.

26. During the burning tenement building rescue a child asks his/her mother, “Is that Jesus?”

27. Extended conversation on the roof of the prison between Rorschach, Dan and Laurie. Night Owl announces that he had to disable the screechers.

28. Some knot-tops are seen discussing Night Owl by the newsstand. Hollis calls up Sally; their conversation is interrupted by the knot-tops who beat him to death; during which Hollis flashes back a few times to his glory days.

29. Dan and Rorschach’s exchange in the Owl basement is extended.

30. During the bar questioning, Dan learns that Hollis has been killed from a news report on television and proceeds to bust the teeth out of a knot-top.

31. Dr. Manhattan’s conversation with Laurie has a longer beginning, starting with his announcement, "You're going to tell me you have been having an affair with Dan.”

The "bullet catch" is an age-old illusion. The myth that Ozy can catch a bullet has been around for a while in the comic's universe, so it would stand to reason that he would carry around a prop bullet if he ever felt the need to pull the illusion off in a pinch. Sure, Laurie shot at him from an extremely close range, but it's obvious from the preceding panel that she is doing a poor job of aiming. Did he catch the bullet? There are a few possibilities: 1.) he did, in fact, catch it, 2.) Laurie missed, and Ozy made it seem as though she hadn't with a squib, a prop, and some prestidigitation, 3.) Laurie didn't miss, but Ozy doesn't let anyone know.

Since the cape is flowing upward when he makes his "catch," the bullet might not have had to pass through it, meaning that the exit wound (assuming it exited) would be concealed by the cape. Meditation could have slowed the bleeding, and he is seen meditating shortly thereafter. Some more prestidigitation could have been used to seal the wound.

What's that? No. You're right. It doesn't seem likely that he could have pulled off getting shot and pretending he wasn't. He's too celebratory (what with the arm lifting and exclaiming) to be meditating when he discovers that he his plan had succeeded. We have all heard tell of people who can slow their heart rates through meditation, but it would take some true meditative badassery to meditate while seeming not to meditate.

If he were shot, then, it is likely he will die, soon, since there's no one around to patch him up--at least, no one he can afford to admit having been shot to. (Forgive awkward grammar. I am from Alabama, which is almost worse, when it comes to butchery of English, than being from a country with a first language other than English. [The previous sentence assumes that the person from the country with a first language other than English speaks that first language first, and not English.])

It would seem more likely, then, that Laurie missed, and that Ozy made it seem as though she hadn't. Ozy's "Something else I didn't know would work" statement would have been said to sell the illusion, then. Jon would know, theoretically, of Ozy's slight-of-hand, but Jon's hand has already been played in support of what Ozy had done.

Would it have been possible for him to have caught it? Cursory searches do not lead me to any solid data on hand speeds or bullet speeds. Most stats come with long lists of variables to consider (resistance, distance, atmosphere, et cetera). These same stats *do* indicate that it would be very unlikely. It would strain believability less to say he had deflected it with one hand and produced a fake with the other. Catching it from that range would involve stopping it cold, which would have required either a first surface harder/more dense than the bullet (a series of multiple surfaces less dense than the bullet could have stopped it, too), or some method of traveling at or near bullet speed, grabbing it while traveling at this speed, and slowing it gradually. The most likely scenario if Laurie didn't miss is a bulletproof vest and a prop bullet. He sells the illusion well enough so that Laurie doesn't go for a head shot, and convinces all the humans that he is too fast and too smart for them.

In the movie:

She shoots, we get a special effect that became passé a decade ago, he catches.

He has blood on his hands, yes, and he is holding a bullet. Again, though, a squib and a prop bullet could account for that. If he were wearing bulletproof/bullet-resistant armor, that, too, could account for it. If he were shot (again, at pretty close range), the bullet may have penetrated a little bit--even a lot bit. His anticipating being shot (not just by the heroes, but by anyone) could account for him having all the appropriate materials on hand. A good illusionist is ever at the ready.

I should apologize for the dig at the "bullet-time effect," which, as it turns out, does not occur when Laurie shoots him.

The idea of a human actually catching a bullet shot from a handgun is pretty silly.

end of story.

It's a shame I came into this conversation too late for the stoking to do any good.

great directors will never conform to what's cool and trendy. slo-mo and kungfu should be the farthest thing from watchmen. it's not cool, it's just stupid.

and dont bother arguing with captainAxis. when someone can justify any stupid thing snyder did in the film, then he's just beyond reasoning. reminded me of harry's justification for the existence of jar jar in phantom menace.

To sum it up nicely,Watchmen is the Goodfellas of superhero Movies.And thus far best Comicbook I have seen this year.

A movie adaptation of anything should represent the source material but not duplicate it exactly. You have to omit and change certain things in the SCRIPT stage (not in editing) to have good pacing and a concise film. You should be able to tell any story in roughly a 2 hr movie.

It seemed like they were trying to make this as long as possible and for that reason the extended version works better than the theatrical one (which suffered from poor editing IMO). For the theatrical release, it seemed like they didnt cut entire scenes but little pieces here and there. A line here, a shot there, etc, and this just makes the movie feel choppy and uneven.

Also they cut out some GOOD scenes here. More Rorshack voiceovers, more violence, fight scenes, death scenes, etc. Its the one movie I can think of where the cut scenes are pretty damn entertaining. I also think you get more character development with the ext. version which is always good.

Again Watchmen is flawed but still an interesting experiment and a good movie IMO. I think you probably HAVE to read the comic to really 'get it' and thats probably the biggest flaw of the movie but I still like it.

Any Rorshack scene, the Dr. Manhattan origin sequence, and the Comedian in Vietnam are worth the price of admission IMO...

Smart directors will of course listen to their editors advice and usually go with their instincts, but often when you are in an editing bay you'll have a director tell you to trim each cut or add head, or exchange shots. Almost nothing isn't at least tinkered with by a director.

So, no it is not an editor who makes the final decisions in a studio (union) production, it is the director or the producer (depending on the production).

captainaxis is the standard think-he's-smart-when-he's-rea lly-just-clueless geek who always come to the defend of this kind of pseudo intellegent movie. you've seen his kind vehemously defending the matrix sequels way back when. it's akin to someone who's been reading comics all his life and suddenly found out about books with no drawings in it. it makes him feel smart liking watchmen movie because he has never seen a smarter movie before.

can you believe this captaintool? if it didnt work on the screen then it didnt work. nothing synder will say or do after the fact will make it work any better.

You'll notice that he views TDK (and pretty much anything by Nolan) as being flawless despite certain facts to the contrary (loved the movie myself). I predict he will do the same to such upcoming films as MOON and THE ROAD. These are just two of the movies he's already declared his undying admiration for despite the fact that he has yet to see them. I won't be surprised if he heaps undue praise upon them no matter their perceived shortcomings.

He's a strange and peculiar fellow; one who spends an awful lot of time on this site saying the same things...over and over and over again. He is, without a doubt, AICN's most borish Talkbacker.

Anyway, welcome to the boards. Cheers!

Once you get to know him he is a real sweetheart.

that explains everything about your taste. i dont know what's worse - that you like the comics spawn(mcfarlane is a shitty writer of the highest caliber) and actually want a movie that "stays true to the book", or that you want snyder to do it.

anyone can rationalize shitty choices away, but that doesnt make those choices any less shitty. hyperreal and stylized actions do not belong in watchmen. they distract rather than complement the story. only a hack with no originality and imagination with do the watchmen matrix style.

You don't pay attention very well, Assimov. You're too busy trying to look like you know what you're talking about. That's why you continue to misunderstand the criticisms directed at you.

Godsdamn, you're a bore.

its not like you are just posting "IT SUCKS". and then start insulting opposing TBers.

And he thinks I'm always good for a laugh?! HA!

Quote: "...has explained countless times..."

Yes, his non-stop repetitive posts about the "hack JJ Abrams and his Jay Jay TREK" are now virtually countless. How long has it been since that movie premiered? And he's still beating a dead horse about in a WATCHMEN TB?! Someone has got issues...

Quote: "...they are thoughtful and mature"

You mean his "pieces of bullshits movies [sic] like Jay Jay TREK" posts? How are they mature?

Quote: "its not like you are just posting "IT SUCKS". and then start insulting opposing TBers"

Yes, he does and yes he did. The numerous STAR TREK related threads speak to this.

Besides, what would Egg Shen do?

i dunno, compared to TITBAGs posts, he is mature adn comes off actually civil.

the movie deconstructs superhero movies??? really? most superheroes movies have stylyzed and hyperreal actions, and so watchmen the movie adopt that same aesthetic to prove what point, exactly? to prove that they're silly & cartoonish? might as well add 'BAM' 'POW' 'OUCH' in big bold colorful letters like back in the day then.

the point moore was making in the book is violence when applied in the real world is not pretty. it's sick and have serious consequences. very different than how it's usually potrayed in comics world - all glamourous and cool. moore took what was cartoonish and made the impact real.

snyder made ozy do superhuman jump and heads smashed into concrete walls with no consequences. he did matrix style fight scenes at every given opportunity in the story. that's not deconstructing anything. that's just being childish and stupid. artistic choices my ass! jar jar bink was an artistic choice too. just ask george.

it's the same kind of lame defense i've seen time and time again to defend a mediocre film. more variations: 'at least it got made'. 'at least it's no batman & robin.' 'at least there's no nipple on the costume'. oh wait, there is.

moore made a comic book world real, snyder made a live action world cartoonish. the two aesthetics are as different as night and day. and no, adding more gore and blood does not automatically make a scene more realistic. in fact, the bone protruding scene in the film has the opposite effect - it's jarring and feels like something out a silly gorefest, like friday the 13th.

listen to dvd commentaries to shitty films made by hack directors. they always speak like they're making worthwhile films. but if the end result is a shitty film, then those words are pretty much worthless, arent they?

what moore said in the above quote is exactly what i get from the book anyway. a great artist communicate his intention clearly in his art.

by your rationale, since these things do not exist in the OUR real world, then anything goes. that's just as silly as saying 'oh it's okay to have a talking duck in watchmen since it has a blue being anyway, and both are just as unrealistic', 'it's okay for the cloverfield monster to suddenly do breakdancing since giant monster is not realistic anyway.'

like i said before, when you're a fanatic you can find justification for anything, even the moronic stuffs.

"in snyder's world"? i thought that was the exact theme moore addressed in the book. but if you think the slo-mo fight has "deeper consequences" and "suggested something deeper" then i guess any silly movie is deep for you.

but most important than that, the scene serves a function. the bulletcatch, just like his "i did it 35 minutes ago", just like his notes & letters that precedes the last chapter in the book... all those add up to ozy's legend. it creates the impression that this guy is formidable, makes us feel the good guys are in over their heads. it's always the little things that speak volumes. moore knew this. snyder gave ozy superhuman jump and kungfu skills. talk about lack of subtlety.

in the movie, bubastis was reduced to just mere decoration because the squid never showed up. her existence served only to baffle audience since she's pretty much useless to the story and never explained. just like the hyperreal fights, she's there just to be there and add nothing but more distractions.

in the film, snyder potrayed the character differently. his costume becomes cool, he fights like jason bourne and neo, he gets to punch ozy's face, he gets to screams "NOOOO!!!" like a man, instead of retreating to his inner sanctum like an impotent child. and hence when the sex scene is done with a more playful nature, it sticks out like a sore eye for some people.

the above are just a few examples of how snyder got it WRONG. i provided more in the earlier watchmen thread. snyder is more concerned with interpreting the visuals of the book onto the screen than he is with characters and themes. this is blatantly apparent. only a blind or clueless man thinks otherwise.

@captainAxis: in the book, dan is dan, whether he's in or out of costume. i know that because the costume still reflects his personality. it's a supersilly costume. he thinks putting it on make him cool but it really doesn't. in the film though... he's dan out of costume but turns into batman when in costume. everything about him are suddenly made cool. he even enjoys beating up people the way he nods at silk spectre during the jail break. he relishes the opportunity. that is not dan. that is the comedian.

why the changes to the character's traits? does it make the character better, more easily identifiable, more original? no. the changes were made just to make the character cooler. and 'cool' should not be in dan's vocabulary.

and yes, a close up of a character screaming "NOOO!" is one of those cliched cool moment. i've seen it in quite a few action films by now.

if you want to compromise with something like watchmen, you better bring your intelect to the table, not these juvenile stuffs like kungfu and blood and gore.

dan's idea of a superhero is a romantic one. that's why he built his ship with the shape of an owl. that's why his costume is the silliest looking of the bunch. that's why he still hangs out with the first niteowl. he is nostalgic for old school superheroics. that's why he put on the costume. he's not someone who relishes beating up criminals. that's the comedian. that's rorschach. and dan is not supposed to turn into rorschach when he's in costume - he is rorschach's direct contrast.

if you have read dan's written piece on owl, you'll get a much deeper understanding of the character. snyder's interpretation is cliched, all polished surface and no depth. that's snyder in a nutshell.

and i have talked about how he stripped the other characters of their nuances as well in another thread, especially rorschach.

you really dont see the difference between moore's niteowl and snyder's? just keep track of the changes snyder made in the film for the character. sure, the obvious elements from book are potrayed in the film, but the nuances are diminished. little changes do add up, and the result is a more cliched interpretation of dan than moore created. notice the stark contrast in tone for the fire rescue scene - playful and goofy in the book, badass and dangerous in the film. that in essence is the difference between moore's niteowl and snyner's. the two are not the same, so stop making excuses for snyder by saying they are.