Comments on: Two Geeks Episode 94 – Watching the Watchmen

By: TotallyNotNick

TotallyNotNick — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 02:27:27 +0000

So…I kinda don’t feel like visitng the fourms but the main site’s kinda dead..anyone care to get a convo going?

By: Mtnmeister

Mtnmeister — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 00:03:25 +0000

I think TotallyNotNick has it right. Many people hate to see the deaths of innocents – babies, children, powerless humans (think Shindler’s list), non-predatory animals (Wolves), domesticated predatory animals (like dogs), “peaceful” aliens (e.g., Klaatu), and non-bad “monsters” (e.g., King Kong, Frankenstein).
On the other hand, we cheer the deaths of those that “have it coming to them”, predators, people we judge to be “bad”, soldiers who know what they’re in for, and cheerleaders and football jocks (oh wait, that’s just me).
And in general, it’s hard to view most humans as total innocents – as opposed to, say, bunnies.

By: TotallyNotNick

TotallyNotNick — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:51:27 +0000

I think its becuase the animal often doesn’t know what’s going on when it dies. It’s innocent

By: Prettz

Prettz — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 09:58:46 +0000

I get the same thing about seeing animals die in movies. I’ll squeem and feel sad over a dog in pain, but dont mindf watching armies of people mowed down.

Sometimes I feel like a traider to the human race for that. (specially after hearing Joe Rogan telling me I am in his stand up)

By: Sunshineyness

Sunshineyness — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 22:16:08 +0000

Film lengths go in and out of style. In the early days of film it was assumed no one had the attention span to watch an hour long movie. Than by the 30’s people were getting 4 hour epics since- because of the depression people wanted more bang for their buck. Than in the 60’s film lengths were cemented back to shorter hours when theaters started doing single billings…

It just seems like epic 3 1/2 hour movies are back in fashion and studios should look at the numbers- some of the highest grossing movies of all time are long movies (Just look at the relative recent successes of Titanic, LotR, and Dark Knight) I just don’t get why studios can’t abide these long times. (I know theaters hate them because they can’t pack as many screenings in a day with them.)

By: Schwien

Schwien — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 20:44:38 +0000

Kingdom of heaven is one I was thinking of today. I saw it in theater and it was quite underwhelming. He had to make cuts that crippled the movie, all they wanted was a shorter movie and didn’t care about the story. That said, I really love (and just re-watched last weekend) the directors cut.

I agree with both of you on this. I have no problem sitting for long movies if it something I like, its too bad we live at a time where most people have such short attention spans that nobody will bank a long theatrical release anymore. I still feel ripped off that I never got to see the LOTR extended cuts in a theater.

By: Care

Care — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 20:21:31 +0000

I thought they did a pretty decent job with keeping the movie close to the book. I didn’t mind the changes, and some I liked better. I really didn’t want to see the two GSD get their heads split open, and thought it was better placed to do it to the killer. I know the dogs were still killed, but I didn’t have to see it (for some reason it bothers me to see dogs getting killed, and not people unless it’s children. I know, I’m weird). I also didn’t care for the octopus thing and thought the movie did a better job of the attack. I wasn’t totally in love with the source material either (I merely liked Watchmen), so that probably colours my outlook.

By: Care

Care — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 20:12:26 +0000

I’m with you Sunshineyness. I would sit in a theatre for 3.5 hrs and up if it was for something I was interested in. I do wish movies would come out the way the director intended, but most don’t due to studio time restraints. A movie that really sticks in my head for this is Kingdom of Heaven. I saw it in the theatre and I did enjoy the movie, but it wasn’t anything amazing. Later I read some reviews on the directors cut so I rented it. It really changed the movie to have those scenes back in. It wasn’t something “just for fans”, IMO, it was how the movie should have been released. I ended up buying it I loved it so much (as did my husband who didn’t care for the theatrical). I blame it on the studios for wanting shorter movies. I cringe inside when I think of what will get cut from The Wheel of Time when it finally gets made into a movie.

I also agree with TotallyNotNick. Directors cuts are more for the fans that obsess. I am one of them. I have the theatrical, extended, and limited editions of LotR. That’s 24 disks! If the Harry Potter movies ever came out with extended editions I would buy those as well.

By: Sunshineyness

Sunshineyness — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 19:09:55 +0000

I know I’m in the minority. After all- I did once spend a Saturday watching an epic 6 hour Italian movie in the theater. But if they released a 3 12 hour film I’d be totally up for it.

I think we need a return of the intermission- like in the old days. I’ve never understood why they’ve gotten rid of that. Seems like it’s win win- gives people a chance to stretch their legs, have a smoke, go to the bathroom, buy another popcorn or soda or something… make a day out of the movies again. Be awesome for a Saturday or Sunday afternoon.

*Sigh* Sometimes I think I was born about fifty years too late.

By: Schwien

Schwien — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:57:04 +0000

I was thinking the same thing when LOTR came out but I have now come to terms with it.

From what I’ve read this is one of the situations where the studio would never agree to the length that the director wants. Snyder and Jackson are more business savy and realized that giving the studio a reasonably timed cut on the agreement that they get the budget to shoot what they want for the dvd is in both parties best interest.
I think both this and the LOTR cuts are safe to call director cuts because the directors knew what they wanted to include and accepted that the dvd release is their only option.

I guess we either have to accept dvd directors cuts or we’ll get 2 1/2 hours final versions.

By: TotallyNotNick

TotallyNotNick — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:41:11 +0000

I think a director’s cut is there for the cinemaphiles who want a more filling experience. Some people don’t care how Dr. Manhattan got his forehead symbol or where the hell that purple cat came from. I mean, I do. I could’ve watched a three hour plus Watchmen movie, but I’m a geek. Most regular folk thought Watchmen was long enough as is.

Director’s Cuts are like those big special edition CD’s with unrealesed tracks or bootlegs. They’re for the people who really care and obsess over the product.

By: Sunshineyness

Sunshineyness — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:57:05 +0000

There is an interesting point raised… should we HAVE to wait for a director’s cut? Back in the day the concept of a director’s cut was there for when the movie got chopped up by a studio, when the cut presented drastically changed the concept and ideas the director wanted to get across. When I think “director’s cut” I think Brazil, Blade Runner, even Superman 2… movies that the cut made for initial release are of a drastically different nature than what they wanted.

Ever since LotR I feel like we’re getting an abridged version in the theater and the full version on DVD and I’m just not sure I’m for that. I mean, I loved LotR- I really did and the extended cuts were much better. The point being though- shouldn’t a director stand behind their theatrical cut?

I’m not slamming anything, and yes, maybe after I see the extended cut of Watchmen I may enjoy it a lot more… my point is, should I have to wait for it? Shouldn’t the theatrical cut be the final cut?

By: Prettz

Prettz — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 06:19:35 +0000

I agree with almost everything you said in this episode, and in some places you’ve altered my opinion slightly in some scenes. All over I loved the movie. I wasnt the comics biggest fan, I always liked it, but never really LOVED it….. although the artwork did put me off (wich you mentioned in the episode).

I find most people who complain wouldnt of been happy with everything and hope they all read this CAD comic.

http://www.cad-comic.com/comic.php?d=20090306

By: Rusty James

Rusty James — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 04:35:36 +0000

Ha ha. Nerd Mafioso describes me much better than “geek” or “fan boy”.

I understand why people don’t like the squid and prefer the mechanism for armageddon in the movie. But that’s a far cry from the ending being better. The aftermath conversation between Veidt and Jon is cut out. Rorscharch’s death (my favorite part of the book!) isn’t nearly as good, their visit in disguise to Sally J. doesn’t resonate as much. Over all it doesn’t really commit to the ambiguity of the book. It tries to put it all in but none of it gets as much detail and attention and the ending suffers for it.

I can *almost* agree with prefering the movie’s scheme for apocalypse (althogh I have a strong instinct to side with the book) but the ending in the book is better.

By: Kingquat

Kingquat — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 04:05:05 +0000

I’ll deliver the goods.
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=67077201&blogId=475266763

By: Ben

Ben — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 03:15:35 +0000

So you bring up this blog, and then neglect to include a link.

By: TotallyNotNick

TotallyNotNick — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 21:18:03 +0000

Patton Oswalt wrote this really great blog on his myspace about Watchmen and the nature of geeks hating over the film that I think you guys would find interesting