WatchmenComicMovie.com Forum

If the DC had been the version that was released in theaters on March 6, would the reaction have been significantly different?

Would the reviews be more positive or negative? Would the box office results have looked better or worse?

One of the toughest things about the movie for non-readers is that it throws A LOT of information and ideas at you, and you have to absorb it all in a relatively short amount of time. I think the slower-paced DC gives the first-time viewer more time to take it all in and ponder its meaning. Would audiences have found this version less incomprehensible?

_________________
"Computer unnecessary."

At any rate, the reviews would've been infinitely better. I imagine a lot of people would've been put off by the runtime, though, but I think the people compelled by the positive reviews would at least even it out.

_________________
A world united in peace. There had to be sacrifice.

but would the length and the fact that there was no imax option hurt the box office? since the DC would be too long for imax.

_________________
We're all actors, Laurie. I'm just an actor who read the script.

The reaction from the average moviegoer would have remained the same. They didn't have a problem with the flow, pacing, character arcs, or plot. Mainly because, in this day and age, the average moviegoer doesn't care. They had a problem with the fact that there was no action, that it was "too boring," that it was too long, and that there was too much male nudity. If anything, they would have hated the Director's Cut even more.

_________________
"With our thoughts we make the world."
-- Gautama Buddha

Pretty much this. If anything, the only difference would be that all the dumbass reviewers and other people claiming the movie is three hours long would actually be correct.

_________________
I don't mind being the smartest man in the world. I just wish it wasn't this one.

Well, thats quite interesting, because critics and hardcore fanboys of the graphic novel would give it good reviews and love it, but then, for example, the dumb teenagers that go to the movies on Friday nights in big groups and crowd the theater would all be like, "that shit was boring, plus it was too long", and like txt message on their phones throughout the movie.

I would of liked it better, but I was pleased with the theatrical

I think a lot of the criticisms would have remained, including pacing issues people had. People would still call the movie disjointed, because WATCHMEN, as a story, is. No one would suddenly be praising Malin Akerman just because she has a few more scenes, and the people who couldn't figure out what was going on...still wouldn't be able to figure out what was going on. The omissions that bothered most people were still missing from the DC.

I often wonder about this myself, which should give you an idea of how I spend my days/life, and usually come to the conclusion that, yes, it would've been better received had the Director's Cut found its way into theaters instead of the chopped up Theatrical version. It would be longer (duh) but people sat through the LOTR trilogy which was very plot heavy, unless that's just my perception, but had very good pacing and good action scenes to balance it out, which is how I feel the Director's Cut operates.

But something that I feel is being kind of ignored is how much Watchmen defies genre. Think about it: it's a superhero movie...sometimes. It's a horror movie...sometimes. It teeters on romantic comedy...sometimes. It's a political movie...sometimes. It's a dystopian movie...sometimes. You get the point. People like being able to watch something and label it and Watchmen doesn't let its viewers do that. Perhaps that's what people didn't like about it, subconsciously?

This was a big issue in my theater. Everyone there had some comment about it that they'd catcall just loud enough for me to hear up near the front row. The American public as a whole, it seems, is totally content with seeing naked women in basically every R-rated comedy nowadays, but throw in male nudity, and everyone is shocked and mortified. You would not believe how many people would reference it. I would say, "Oh, did you see WATCHMEN?" And they'd say, "Ew, is that the movie with the naked blue guy? I think I'm gonna pass."

It really shocked and mortified me that so many people in this country have that mentality. How far have we really come?

_________________
"Congress is pushing through some new bill that's gonna outlaw masks. Our days are numbered. Till then it's like you always say, we're society's only protection."

Brutal Rape scenes, breaking bones, and using a machete on someone's head? That's alllllllllright. But blue penis? NOW YOU'RE JUST CROSSING THE LINE!!!

I think the tomatometer might have been a little bit higer, but that's all.

Really, one of the reasons I respect the movie is that most people won't like it. It doesn't feel like a commercialized piece of entertainment desinged to please as many people as possible. It feels like a legit piece of art. I've never seen a movie like that made for $100m. That's what makes it special.

_________________
"Computer unnecessary."

My dad watched it and really loved the DC, he never saw the TC.

I think the people that liked the TC would like the DC and the people who don't like the TC would hate the DC

_________________
@RealSlimCAvery

Yes, I think so. I noted yesterday that Time magazine made the DC DVD a pick selection and compared it favorably to the theatrical version. So just maybe that improved story flow and greater depth/texture might have made a difference with reviewers (and casual moviegoers) prepared to give WATCHMEN the attention it merited.

_________________
Ego Ipse Custodes Custudio