Talk:Watchmen (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Watchmen (film) article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Future
This article has been rated as Future-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
WikiProject Comics
comics
Portal
This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents
Archive
Archives
  1. May 2006 - October 2007


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)