Lay It On

email this story
read comments (29)
post a comment

On Collider late yesterday afternoon Steve Weintraub reported on a chat with Watchmen director Zack Snyder, and the big news is that the Watchmen DVD/Blu-ray will have two much longer versions of the film. One will be a 3 hour and 10 minute director's cut and another cut with "Tales of the Black Freighter" that will run 3 hours and 25 minutes. The theatrical cut runs 2 hours and 36 minutes.

That Whooshing Feeling<< previous | next >>No Holmes Reshoots

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on February 19, 2009 at 7:36 AM

comment #1

Krazy Eyes says ...

Good news . . . now I don't need to bother seeing it in a theater and can just wait to see the most complete version when it hits DVD.

Posted by Krazy Eyes at February 19, 2009 8:09 AM

comment #2

/3rtfu11 says ...

co-sign with Krazy Eyes

Posted by /3rtfu11 at February 19, 2009 8:28 AM

comment #3

murdocdv says ...

Agreed with Krazy Eyes and /3rtfu11, I was twittering this yesterday as well. It's only 3-4 months to Blu-ray anyway, who cares.

Posted by murdocdv at February 19, 2009 8:35 AM

comment #4

actionman says ...

Um...IMAX screen VS television set (don't care how big). No contest. If you have any interest in this film at all, waiting till DVD just seems...well...asinine.

Posted by actionman at February 19, 2009 9:10 AM

comment #5

Josh Massey says ...

Completely agreed that waiting for BluRay is a viable option - except that there is nothing else worth seeing in theaters now.

I love leaving work and going to the nearby pub/theater to get a beer and dinner, but I'm seeing Watchmen if my only other choices are horror remakes and Tyler Perry.

Posted by Josh Massey at February 19, 2009 9:13 AM

comment #6

scooterzz says ...

fwiw-- the cut i saw two days ago was 161 minutes (according to the publicist)....
snyder also said yesterday that the 'directors cut' was going to have even more dr. manhattan nudity than the theatrical version (not sure how that's possible but.....)....

Posted by scooterzz at February 19, 2009 9:25 AM

comment #7

Sabina E says ...

fanboys will CREAM in their panties for this.

Posted by Sabina E at February 19, 2009 9:34 AM

comment #8

corey3rd says ...

The price it costs to take the wife over to see this on the big screen is going to equal that Blu-ray. Maybe some people have money to burn on watching an incomplete movie in IMax. But if I can't score a freebie pass to this film - I'll wait to see it as it was intended to be shown

Posted by corey3rd at February 19, 2009 10:05 AM

comment #9

Edward says ...

Not a fanboy, but am more than curious about this.

Posted by Edward at February 19, 2009 10:13 AM

comment #10

Chase Kahn says ...

If the "incomplete" 160 minutes suck, I don't think I'll care to watch the other 30.

Posted by Chase Kahn at February 19, 2009 10:15 AM

comment #11

frankbooth says ...

For once, I agree with actionman. The plot is important, but it's also a visual extravaganza -- it's not Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy.

The whole "Black Freighter" business is overrated anyway, as I recall.

Posted by frankbooth at February 19, 2009 11:12 AM

comment #12

Rich S. says ...

"If the 'incomplete' 160 minutes suck, I don't think I'll care to watch the other 30."

Speaking of which, has anyone ever actually watched the extended cut of King Kong?

Posted by Rich S. at February 19, 2009 11:13 AM

comment #13

Jonah says ...

"fanboys will CREAM in their panties for this."

Look at the little "punk rocker" being all unoriginal and shit.

"fanboys" is the most overrated insult of the decade.

I'm supposed to be ashamed of liking something? Of liking something a lot?

Posted by Jonah at February 19, 2009 11:33 AM

comment #14

chicagodad says ...

So how long would the movie be if you took all the slo-mo and accelerated it to normal speed?

2 hours?

Posted by chicagodad at February 19, 2009 11:41 AM

comment #15

actionman says ...

Speaking of which, has anyone ever actually watched the extended cut of King Kong?

RichS -- I am proud to state that I have NEVER seen ANY of the LOTR films in their entirety.

In fact, I slept through much of part 1 in the theater, never saw part 2, and only watched the big battle sequence from part 3 just so I could compare it to the simila battle in Ridley Scott's infinitely superior Kingdom of Heaven.

Posted by actionman at February 19, 2009 11:57 AM

comment #16

JustThisGuy says ...

chicagodad: There is supposedly very little slomo at all in the movie.

Posted by JustThisGuy at February 19, 2009 12:03 PM

comment #17

frankbooth says ...

"Speaking of which, has anyone ever actually watched the extended cut of King Kong?"

Only at secret CIA interrogation facilities.

Posted by frankbooth at February 19, 2009 12:12 PM

comment #18

frankbooth says ...

Actionman,

Every time I warm slightly toward you, you gotta go and ruin it by saying something silly. If you like action and have never seen the Helm's Deep battle from TT, you're missing out. It's also pretty cool when the walking trees go apeshit on Dracula's high-rise condo.

And I hate to sound like such a geek, but King Kong is not part of LOTR, by any stretch. One is about little guys with hairy feet, the other's about a large gorilla in love. Maybe you're familiar with the superior (and far shorter) 1931 version.

Posted by frankbooth at February 19, 2009 12:22 PM

comment #19

actionman says ...

Frankbooth -- sorry to disappoint you. I just don't like the Playstation-y look of the LOTR films. And I'm not a fantasy guy. Those movies just did nothing for me. Didn't read the books when I was a kid so there was no vested interest.

Posted by actionman at February 19, 2009 12:38 PM

comment #20

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Jonah -- this weekend, i bet our resident "fangirl punk" is going to be "creaming her mohawk" if Slumdog Trust Fund manages to take home the Best Picture Oscar (which we all know rightfully belongs to The Dark Knight).

Posted by CitizenKanedforChewingGum at February 19, 2009 1:47 PM

comment #21

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

P.S. DBTP -- What was with your puzzling response to that thread the other day, in which you called an actress's voice "shrill and annoying?".

Um, can you hear me now?

Posted by CitizenKanedforChewingGum at February 19, 2009 1:49 PM

comment #22

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

And AM, I am simply shocked -- SHOCKED! -- by your comments re: LotR trilogy.

I guess not being a "fan," some of the stuff would meander a bit (esp. in the extended editions), but good god, there is some fantastic action in there!!!

The stuff in TT is definitely on the KoH: TDC level...probably a bit above that, to be perfectly honest (depends on your specific tastes for huge army action, I s'pose).

Posted by CitizenKanedforChewingGum at February 19, 2009 1:59 PM

comment #23

BurmaShave says ...

actionman I think you would like THE TWO TOWERS a lot, I know it's the only one of the series I can stand all that much. There's some great action sequences, and it can't meander even if it wants to because there's no exposition and no drawn out ending. Plus Serkis' work as Gollum in it really is one of the great performances of the decade.

Posted by BurmaShave at February 19, 2009 3:07 PM

comment #24

BurmaShave says ...

And yeah I will be seeing WATCHMEN out of necessity more than anything else. There's nothinnnnng, and I mean nothing, else worth seeing between now and March 6th.

Posted by BurmaShave at February 19, 2009 3:08 PM

comment #25

Jonah says ...

Citizenkaned,

The thought of fangirl creaming her pants disgusts me, but I'm sure you're right. And The Dark Knight is a far superior film to Slumdog. The Academy Awards really mean nothing.

I'm as big a sports fan as I am a movie fan. I couldn't tell you without checking what won best picture in 1982, 1985, or 1989.

But I could easily tell you who won the World Series, Superbowl, and NBA Championship each of those years.

Because in sports the best team normally wins. In movie awards, it's a popularity contest and ratings deal.

Posted by Jonah at February 19, 2009 4:06 PM

comment #26