# Talk:Watchmen (2009 film)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

That is a bizarre statement.  See WP:V. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Its true! Crazybob2014 (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

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)
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)

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)

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) 

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)

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))

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)