Malin Akerman & Kate Mara Reveal Whether There's Any Truth Behind TDKR & Superman Casting Rumors!

WATCHMEN is the bar!

Thats the bar other superhero movies should try to get to... THOR and GREEN LANTERN and CAPTAIN AMERICA should get there fingers crossed!

MARA makes a great BATGIRL! ; )

Watchmen was the biz, did you hear about what previous directors wanted to do with it though? Wanted to make ozymandias go back in time to kill john osterman to prevent dr manhatgen from being made? What the [frick] is that about, definately glad zack snyder made it so close to the comic, he did good.

marvel72 @ Yeah man, AWESOME movie!

Pity we're still getting crap (ie FOX)

: P

Dawn of the Dead, 300 & Watchman are the reasons I trust Snyder.

Superman will be sick.

@fartman - i cant tell if your saying you like watchmen or not? You disagree with me then say it is the bar? Do explain kind sir.

@LEEE777 - I am a firm believer that nothing could save that movie hopefully it is terrible makes no money and fox gives it back to marvel so it cn be remade in the MCU where it belongs.

They both seem pretty cool.

that the same girl from 127 days? if so i liked her in that even though it was for only 10 minutes

I'd love to see these two in a role :D
Kate Mara would be a hot Vicki Vale or even Lana Lang :D

Malin would be a good kryptonian villainess

they are both hot!!
@LEEE- Watchmen is the shiznit!!

@RyKnow: I did and he said, "I haven't seen it. Dave seems to like it though. What did you think of it?"

MY opinion is that it's a [frick]ing work of art. So there you go.

@ KeithM - A work of art? It's already a forgotten loss. Well, asyou claim, at least the creator had sense to avoid it.

I particularly enjoyed this quote from a reviewer; "Watchmen is a bore...It sinks under the weight of its reverence for the original,".

And this one; "That's the trouble with loyalty. Too little, and you alienate your core fans. Too much, and you lose everyone – and everything – else."

And one more; "Snyder never pauses to develop a vision of his own. The result is oddly hollow and disjointed; the actors moving stiffly from one overdetermined tableau to another,".

Sorry, I couldn't resist this cracker; "Watching 'Watchmen' is the spiritual equivalent of being whacked on the skull for 163 minutes. The reverence is inert, the violence noxious, the mythology murky, the tone grandiose, the texture glutinous".

Hmm, yes, a work of art ;).

Two can play at quoting reviews btw:

"Another bold exercise in the liberation of the superhero movie." - Roger Ebert

"Watchmen has moments of greatness. It proves again that the action movie is where the best young Hollywood brains have gone to bring flesh to their fantasies." - Richard Corliss (Time Magazine)

"There's something admirable about the entire enterprise: its ungainly size, its unrelenting weirdness, its willful, challenging intensity." - Tom Huddleston (Time Out)

Nobody is arguing that it didn't get a mixed reception, but a "disaster" it WAS NOT. Wake up.

Keith, my friend, what in blue f**k is a troll post? It's not like I was trying to hide the fact they were quotes. But, yes, I'm afraid it did suck. It might have been better if Terry Gilliam had stuck around to direct it.

Seeing as your mates with Alan Moore, you'll remember he was vehemently against the adaption because he knew how it would turn out. And your right, I personally did not like it. Along with god knows how many other people. It was too long and nothing happened in it. Face it, Snyder doesn't have his own style or vision. For god's sake, the man uses comic panels for his own storyboards. Where's his imagination? And yes, I reckon he's going to destroy what hope there is of a decent Superman film.

P.S. Watchmen only made $185,253,487 worldwide?? It cost $130,000,000 to make the thing. That means it didn't even break even! So yeah, it was a disaster. And a box office flop!

@RyKnow: Actually he wasn't 'vehemently against the adaptation' when it was first mooted in c.1986 at all - even going as far as being involved in possibly writing the screenplay (which he eventually declined). Once upon a time, believe it or not, Moore was quite enthusiastic about his works being adapted.

Only his experiences with Hollywood since have changed his mind.

Yes, he's always maintained that Watchmen wasn't inherently cinematic and was designed to show the things comics can do that books or cinema can't, and didn't think the films would be any good anyway, but he's always just thought that adaptations period aren't going to be as good as the original medium it was intended for.

League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is what turned him against film adaptations - or Hollywood in particular - specifically, but he's against adaptations period, from any medium into any other, not just Watchmen.

"I think that adaptation is largely a waste of time in almost any circumstances. There probably are the odd things that would prove me wrong. But I think they'd be very much the exception. If a thing works well in one medium, in the medium that it has been designed to work in, then the only possible point for wanting to realize it on "multiple platforms," as they say these days, is to make a lot of money out of it. There is no consideration for the integrity of the work, which is rather the only thing as far as I'm concerned. "

Whatever else you think, it's pretty clear Snyder had the 'integrity' of the work more in mind than trying to go for the mostest money he could make (e.g. making it PG13, setting it in modern day, Ozy 'caught', etc, etc.)

As for the actual adaptations themselves and what he actually thinks of them:

"I've never watched any of the adaptations of my books. I've never wanted to, and there's absolutely no chance of me doing so in the future. So I haven't really suffered through them, although there has been a certain amount of irritation and outrageous behavior on the part of the comic industry and the movie industry that I have suffered through. But I've gone into this at bitter and ranting length elsewhere. I'm sure that people can look up the relevant articles have they a wish to.

My books are still the same books as they were before they were made into films. The books haven't changed. I'm reminded of the remark by, I think it was Raymond Chandler, where he was asked about what he felt about having his books "ruined" by Hollywood. And he led the questioner into his study and showed him all the books there on the bookshelf, and said, Look—there they all are. They're all fine. They're fine. They're not ruined. They're still there. And I think that's pretty much the attitude I take. If the books are as good as I think they are, then they are the things that will endure. And if the films are as bad as I think they are, then they are the things that will not endure. So, I suppose we'll see at the end of the day, whenever that is. "

So, basically, there's no point even bringing Alan Moore into any discussion about the merits of the movie unless you're going to argue his point. Which isn't yours.

He has one. It's valid. But he acknowledges that there are times when he's proven wrong. Dave Gibbons however, DOES NOT feel the same way as Moore and seemed positively thrilled by the film on the commentary in the Ultimate Cut. The guy who saw it, Dave, liked it, the guy who didn't, Alan, has no opinion about it at all (other than the fact that it doesn't replace the book so he's not bothered either way).

Regardless, Alan Moore's views Don't stop ME (and many others) enjoying the movie. And I do. Immensely. Nothing you can say changes that, so, once again - a "disaster" it wasn't. :)

(see here for the rest of that interview with Moore btw):

@ KeithM - While I'm massively impressed with your superior ability to copy and paste from a variety of sources across the net, I got more of a feeling I was reading a post by Alan Moore and not you. I've stated my views on the film, to which you've obviously read, but you're sounding like an errand boy for your friends, "Alan" and "Dave". I don't come on here to start arguments (like some other users I won't name), but I like to debate (which is why I don't resort to name calling). I'm not getting a debate off you. I'm getting a lot of pasted lines I've already read elsewhere in the past (granted, I pasted some quotes in ONE post), or somebody else's opinions, ("Dave's" and "Alan's") in your words. Come on man, your better than that! But answer me this if you will;

As you state, Watchmen made $185,253,487 in worldwide box office. It cost $130,000,000 to make. A film needs to make double it's budget to break even. Then it has to make more money to make a profit. As you can see from the figures, it didn't do either, in effect, making it a flop. OK, disaster was a bit extreme, but a flop it was. This isn't my opinion, this is a fact. The figures speak for themselves.

@ AvengersTower - Read above for why it's not a Math(s) failure. That's how business works.

Agreed it needed to make rougly 200 Mil to break even. Didn't know you hadn't taken into account the marketing budget for the film. I obviously didn't know the figures. If anything it outright sucks since more studios will point to it as a reason to not do R-rated cbms.

RyKnowNothing, amusing, but not original.

@ KeithM - I stand corrected. I'll be honest and tell you I only took the box office into account. My bad. Their not false arguments by the way, I just made an error. I shouldn't be on this site while I'm at work, things like this happen. I'd like to argue about what I don't like about the film but that means watching it again. I saw it once when it first came out on DVD and thought it sucked. I don't know why, maybe I expected a return to form for Snyder (a la Dawn of the Dead). The only reasons I can give you here and now is that it went on too long, nothing of immense interest happened (other than Rorshach's prison scenes) and there was a totally ridiculous sex scene that seemed like it belonged in another movie. If I had to watch it again, tonight, I'd probably have more reasons to give you.
I've read interviews with Alan Moore who didn't want to be associated with the film and didn't want his name on the credits. One interview quoted Alan Moore as saying, "Watchmen shouldn't be a film. It should be kept the way it was intended; as a book to read in front of the fire with a cup of tea". I'm not making that up, or pasting it from elsewhere. I read that a while ago.
Once again, my bad with the revenue side of things. Peace.

@ AvengersTower - Yawn.