WARNING:  Prepare for the DOUBLE-DIP, folks.

Yes, that's right, ladies and gents, as per a $10 off insert within the DVD, coming this December will be a 5-disc Ultimate Collector's Edition of WATCHMEN.  

What it will contain is:

A "whole new movie" which will be the DIRECTOR'S CUT with the TALES OF THE BLACK FREIGHTER woven in.  

New commentary by Dave Gibbons and Director Zack Snyder.

2+ hours of bonus content

and THE COMPLETE WATCHMEN MOTION COMICS

so stoked on this dvd release! cant wait to see teh directors cut...in the meantime i will just keep listening to hte soundtrack. check out this cool preview:

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpi...

BoBoi wrote: lee09 wrote: Its all a matter of preference. Lossless might be lossless but you can't help the fact to comprehend that DTS has always sounded clearer and much crispier than anything Dolby Digital related. You should see how that is an improvement, shouldn't be so ignorant, this is the first Warner Blu-ray disc to feature a DTS-HD Master Audio track. If Warner choose that encoding soundtrack is because it will obviously be the ultimate sounding experience.
Warner chooses? This is only an one-off case, and it's highly likely that Zack Snyder was the one that chose to use DTS-MA. Same thing with Spielberg on Close Encounters release.

It's not an improvement. There is no more 'kick' on DTS-MA. DTS and Dolby are encoding technologies, they are not doing the encoding, all they are doing is providing the studio their technology. It depends on the studio master and the team who is doing the encoding. There are plenty of TrueHD tracks that are far better than DTS-MA tracks, and vice versa.  

Ignorant huh? It's pretty ignorant to suggest that one lossless codec is more efficient than others. That is ignorant at the highest level.

lee09 wrote: By the way BoBoi, any real audiophile would have much preferred a The Dark Knight Blu-ray edition with a nice kick of DTS-HD Master Audio. Am saying that because of your signature pic.

And p.s! If I were to be talking about SD DVD I would have mentioned the Batman Anthology carrying one, but since this is Blu-ray and its an HD Master Audio soundtrack and the first WB Blu-ray to carry one, things can't be on the same relating level, now can it?
Real audiophiles? You mean you? There are as many Reference TrueHD tracks as there are for DTS-MA. And no, no real audiophiles would want DTS-MA on TDK, because the True-HD track on TDK is already at reference level.

Same relation? What are you talking about? I mentioned that to simply suggest that Warner used DTS before. And of course there are differences between DTS and DD on SD, since DTS on SD is capable of much higher bitrate than DD. It's not the same on HD, since both have the same capabilities of encoding lossless audio at similar/same bitrate.

Please, just bite your tongue, because you obviously don't know what your talking about. The Dark Knight should be entitled to sound more profoundly dynamic coming from a DTS-HD Master Audio 7.1 source than anything Dolby, no matter if its TrueHD. I love both codecs, but DTS has always taken the win. It's fine by me if you can't accept it, I know you're a TrueHD fanboy, but yes!, any real audiophile can prove you out that DTS is and will always be the ultimate in surround sound experience. Enough said.

Grifter02 wrote: lee09 wrote: I take it that by that remark your giving you must be a Dolby fanboy and/or a DTS basher? Im not a fanboy to anything relating DTS, am in between when it comes to soundtrack encodes, but if I had to choose between Dolby and DTS, it will obviously be DTS. To me it has always had a more satisfying soundstage. Something Dolby would have a hard time competing with. It can't be helped. Its as easy as that.

You should take from my remark that I don't take sides in this silly "codec war" because lossless = lossless = lossless. You can't tell me you think DTS lossless is better than Dolby lossless and then tell me you're not a DTS fanboy.

Anyway, as I said, it's pointless trying to enlighten people like you on simple mathematics (ie. 2 + 2 = 4, every time, no matter what, it doesn't = 3 because you used a Dolby calculator instead of a DTS calculator), so I'm not going to reply to you again. I just wanted to clear up my stance on the topic.

Your previous remark and now your new opinion that you don't take sides on the "codec war" seems very contradicting from your part. The first response felt you were very much in favor of TrueHD instead. But anyhow, I love DTS and as I mentioned before I very much prefer it over TrueHD but I can't say am a enthusiastic fanboy of it like you on TrueHD for instance. The scenario you tried to used is very ludicrous, ha ha. (Dolby calculator instead of a DTS calculator) What the hell? lol

lee09 wrote: Its all a matter of preference. Lossless might be lossless but you can't help the fact to comprehend that DTS has always sounded clearer and much crispier than anything Dolby Digital related. You should see how that is an improvement, shouldn't be so ignorant, this is the first Warner Blu-ray disc to feature a DTS-HD Master Audio track. If Warner choose that encoding soundtrack is because it will obviously be the ultimate sounding experience.
Warner chooses? This is only an one-off case, and it's highly likely that Zack Snyder was the one that chose to use DTS-MA. Same thing with Spielberg on Close Encounters release.

It's not an improvement. There is no more 'kick' on DTS-MA. DTS and Dolby are encoding technologies, they are not doing the encoding, all they are doing is providing the studio their technology. It depends on the studio master and the team who is doing the encoding. There are plenty of TrueHD tracks that are far better than DTS-MA tracks, and vice versa.  

Ignorant huh? It's pretty ignorant to suggest that one lossless codec is more efficient than others. That is ignorant at the highest level.

lee09 wrote: By the way BoBoi, any real audiophile would have much preferred a The Dark Knight Blu-ray edition with a nice kick of DTS-HD Master Audio. Am saying that because of your signature pic.

And p.s! If I were to be talking about SD DVD I would have mentioned the Batman Anthology carrying one, but since this is Blu-ray and its an HD Master Audio soundtrack and the first WB Blu-ray to carry one, things can't be on the same relating level, now can it?
Real audiophiles? You mean you? There are as many Reference TrueHD tracks as there are for DTS-MA. And no, no real audiophiles would want DTS-MA on TDK, because the True-HD track on TDK is already at reference level.

Same relation? What are you talking about? I mentioned that to simply suggest that Warner used DTS before. And of course there are differences between DTS and DD on SD, since DTS on SD is capable of much higher bitrate than DD. It's not the same on HD, since both have the same capabilities of encoding lossless audio at similar/same bitrate.

BoBoi wrote: lee09 wrote: DTS-HD MA? OMG, Wow Warner we are definitely improving our discs! Way to go! :D
I don't really see how this is an improvement. I mean lossless is lossless, hence PCM = TrueHD = DTS-MA, in terms of their efficiency. The only benefits I see for using DTS-MA is for those who still use optical and they can get DTS Full Bitrate 1.5 Mbps instead of DD 640 Kbps.

But yeah it's rare for Warner to use DTS, I remembered the last time they did was probably for Batman Anthology (SD Release).

Its all a matter of preference. Lossless might be lossless but you can't help the fact to comprehend that DTS has always sounded clearer and much crispier than anything Dolby Digital related. You should see how that is an improvement, shouldn't be so ignorant, this is the first Warner Blu-ray disc to feature a DTS-HD Master Audio track. If Warner choose that encoding soundtrack is because it will obviously be the ultimate sounding experience.

Grifter02 wrote: BoBoi, don't bother trying to explain the concept of lossless codecs to the DTS fanboys, it's over their heads.

I take it that by that remark your giving you must be a Dolby fanboy and/or a DTS basher? Im not a fanboy to anything relating DTS, am in between when it comes to soundtrack encodes, but if I had to choose between Dolby and DTS, it will obviously be DTS. To me it has always had a more satisfying soundstage. Something Dolby would have a hard time competing with. It can't be helped. Its as easy as that.

BoBoi wrote: lee09 wrote: DTS-HD MA? OMG, Wow Warner we are definitely improving our discs! Way to go! :D
I don't really see how this is an improvement. I mean lossless is lossless, hence PCM = TrueHD = DTS-MA, in terms of their efficiency. The only benefits I see for using DTS-MA is for those who still use optical and they can get DTS Full Bitrate 1.5 Mbps instead of DD 640 Kbps.

But yeah it's rare for Warner to use DTS, I remembered the last time they did was probably for Batman Anthology (SD Release).

By the way BoBoi, any real audiophile would have much preferred a The Dark Knight Blu-ray edition with a nice kick of DTS-HD Master Audio. Am saying that because of your signature pic.

And p.s! If I were to be talking about SD DVD I would have mentioned the Batman Anthology carrying one, but since this is Blu-ray and its an HD Master Audio soundtrack and the first WB Blu-ray to carry one, things can't be on the same relating level, now can it?

lee09 wrote: DTS-HD MA? OMG, Wow Warner we are definitely improving our discs! Way to go! :D
I don't really see how this is an improvement. I mean lossless is lossless, hence PCM = TrueHD = DTS-MA, in terms of their efficiency. The only benefits I see for using DTS-MA is for those who still use optical and they can get DTS Full Bitrate 1.5 Mbps instead of DD 640 Kbps.

But yeah it's rare for Warner to use DTS, I remembered the last time they did was probably for Batman Anthology (SD Release).

I hate that they're pushing Blu-Ray so hard. Adding all those extra Blu-Ray exclusive special features and what not. I really want to get a Blu-Ray player, but they're so freakin' expensive!

Master Audio on a Warner title? Whatever next? I was expecting TrueHD.

DTS-HD MA? OMG, Wow Warner we are definitely improving our discs! Way to go! :D

p.s Tom you so totally rock! Thanks for the very early back cover. First to do so!

Ultimate edition in 6 months for me....

may wanna put a update in there that the blu ray  directers cut will include the Watchmen the end is Nigh for ps3

and by the way ill say this again digital copies arent bad i prefere them over ripping cause i have to worry bout watermarks in dvds and or video audio being out of sync but with digital copys i know i get a good portable copy right out of the bat.

I hate the digital copy logo. It's stupid and it takes away from the cover. I've only used a digital copy once for The Dark Knight and even then I only watched it on my iPod one time. I prefer it on an HDTV, thanks.

I also wanna know if the Ultimate Edition will have the Theatrical Cut or the Director's Cut. If it does, I'll buy the Ultimate Edition. If not, I'll be perfectly happy with the Director's Cut.

Nope, I believe Black Freighter will be added to an even-longer cut released later this year. And I'll probably buy both, especially if the theatrical version will be included on the latter one..

so this extra 24mins..... is it literally that, 24mins of new footage?  or is this because they edited in that Pirate story?

Back cover added for the special edition...

mc_serenity wrote: Nevunderwood wrote: Sadly, I think because Marvel has oversaturated the market for close to a decade now, any other superhero film that comes along is just going to look stale at this point.

Stale? Are Dark Horse's "Hellboy" franchise or Warners/DC's "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight" stale in your opinion? I'm beginning to think there are some people who think "Marvel does it better" and refuse to see that other companies can do superb comic-book movies other than Marvel.
Well, if you're gonna ask me then yes, there are elements of those films that are getting a little tired too...my comment was simply an objective observation about the rash of superhero films in the last decade - of which there is no doubt that Marvel has been leading the charge - I never stated anything about them being superior. You tell me, does the phrase "Marvel has oversaturated the market" sound remotely like praise to you? Furthermore, prefacing the sentence with the word "sadly" also implies that the whole thing is rather unfortunate. Either way, in my opinion The Watchmen comes off as a less interesting X-Men film. Not because X-Men are particularly better, but because there has already been 3 of them.

Nevunderwood wrote: Sadly, I think because Marvel has oversaturated the market for close to a decade now, any other superhero film that comes along is just going to look stale at this point.

Stale? Are Dark Horse's "Hellboy" franchise or Warners/DC's "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight" stale in your opinion? I'm beginning to think there are some people who think "Marvel does it better" and refuse to see that other companies can do superb comic-book movies other than Marvel.

For the caliber of movie this was.... i am underwhelmed by the cover art... but still a must buy.

Realy, Coaline also comes out on DVD on the smae date?  Is there any pics/info on the Coraline DVD/Blu-Ray?

YESSSSS!
Dr.Manhatten's blue d**k doesn't show. They did that a little too much in the movie!

Where did you hear about the 5-disc blue ray thing?
They had better make a dvd of that!

Note to the photoshop company. If Roshak is standing in a window, then Dr. Manhattan must be behind the glass or he will look like a Fairy floating on the man's shoulder. Second, I agree with the digital copy comment. Its something most folks don't use.

Does this inclued the 3 and a half hour holy f**k edition? Or is that later?

I just found out that the Blu-ray will include both the Theatrical and Director's Cut while the 2-Disc DVD will only have the Director's Cut.  Also, the Ultimate Cut in December is supposed to include another 50 minutes of footage (most likely Black Freighter).

Street date now confirmed as July 21st rather than the 28th

Pretty lousy cover artwork.  Not to mention you KNOW there'll be some kind of uber-special boxed set edition eventually, with even more special features and oodles of who-knows-what-else in it.  I'll hold out for that one.

No smiley on the spine? Well that sucks. I want the Gibbons comedian cover which seems to be the one used for some of the deluxe editions dotted around the net. At least as a background image behind those weird 'head' packages anyways.

I agree, there is no rush to buy this now. It is obvious by the weak extras this baby is going to get the ultimate treatment later this year just in time for Christmas. The same thing was done with the Dark Knight disk, though I had to go on and break down and get it, knowing all too well we will get stiffed for an ultimate edition down the road.

Watchmen critically was definitely a mixed bag. It ended up with a 64% fresh rating at Rottentomatoes, so I wouldn't say it had mostly negative reviews, but it wasn't a critical darling either. The critical response matched the overall moviegoer response.

Commerically, I would agree it was a failure. The film actually cost 150 million to make (that is according to Boxofficemojo and other sources), promoting the film easily cost 20 million (that is probably a conservative number too), it cost in the neighborhood of 170 million to film and promote. The film only made 107 million domestically and 70 million overseas, that is a total of 177 million. That means the film made a profit of 7 million and that is IF the promtion cost wasn't more than 20 million. Studios don't keep the lights running when they spend 170 million and only get a 7 million dollar profit. The DVD/BluRay sales will help to pad the profit margin, but make no mistake, we have seen the last of this kind of film for awhile.  

After seeing the covers, I have only this to say: time for me to photoshop one myself... with one of the posters for example, which were great and had decent storytelling in themselves... not those cramped pieces of s***.

If the DVD's ultimate edition is comprised of 5 discs as the Blu ray is rumored to be, I'll be waiting just a tad more until it's released with some REAL extra features.

Warner never failed to underwhelm me for some reason... great movies (TDK and Watchmen, to name a few) but extremely low features that have ANYTHING to do with the movie. How can they justify that? What's the need of using cameras behind the scenes if you're not going to use them on any format's release, bunch of dopes?

Worst 3 hours of my life! This movie sucked!

Being a big fan of the GN, I was really excited to see the film. I thought the film was highly satisfying, and probably the best GN adaptation since Sin City. Though I know that there will be an "Absolute Edition" coming around the holidays, I'll still pick up the Director's Cut Blu Ray. The cover art is okay, but they should have done it like the Motion Comics and Black Freighter art, with Watchmen pointed upwards on the left side, and the image on the rest of the cover. It would look better to those who have the previous two releases. Maybe when the ultimate version comes out, they'll do that.

The cover art for the standard DVD is awful, way too cramped, the 2 disc DVD and Blu-Ray art are much better i think. Will pick up the Blu-Ray, and ill be picking up the Ultimate Cut this fall as well (cant help it, im a fanboy)

Liked the movie, but it was a bit of a letdown.  I'll probably just rent the DC to see it atleast once.

If I buy the BD, they'll put out the Ultimate Edition at Christmas which will include Tales of the Black Freighter and Under the Hood.  I just know it.

Meh. I was completely underwhelmed by this film when I first saw the trailer and the actual movie didn't do much to alleviate that initial impression. Sadly, I think because Marvel has oversaturated the market for close to a decade now, any other superhero film that comes along is just going to look stale at this point....Solid rental for me (to see one more time) and then I'll wash my hands of it, thank you very much.

That is some great artwork! Wow, I can't remember the last time a movie had good artwork that wasn't from a poster. Psyched for the director's cut!

This was a s**tty movie

The book was SOOO good and the movie was really good too (despite what everyone says). Not sure if I'll get it, if only because it's so long i can't see watching it any ole afternoon

The artwork is just ok. But i Loved the movie definite 2 disk set buy!!!

Is it just me, or did they use the same photo of Rorschach and just flipped it around for both covers?

Oh no! they photo shopped out Dr. Manhattan's giant blue dong!  

I'll rent the director's cut but I too will wait for the "super mega" release with a replica of...ok, I'm gonna just shut up.

Stupid digital copy. Give us more extras! Nobody uses those Digital Copies. Great film, was a wee bit too long though. This films greatest attribute is the CGI. That is how CGI is supposed to be used. Take the audience where they would never thing to go and while doing so grab their attention and never let go. Plus, amazing characters. But, don't feel like I'd watch and re watch this.

The Blu Ray will be a definite buy. Depending on whether or not the inevitable release of an ultimate edition will have a longer cut of the movie, I will upgrade then. For now though, a Director's Cut will be fine with me.

Gah, I hate when they say "2 disc" anymore, it always means one of those worthless digital copies, which if you really need, you don't know how to use a computer and how you got to typing a post on this website is beyond me...

Loved this movie though, will be waiting for the special edition later on.

Karl wrote: It failed commercially and critically.

The reviews for "Watchmen" were mixed as opposed to mostly negative, and as for it's box-office performance -- it underperformed. It took $100 million to make the movie and it got that amount back plus a bit of change (and add in the foreign grosses, which were $70 million). If it was an outright failure, it would've made less than $100 million.

I personally liked this film a LOT more than Snyder's overhyped (and grossly overrated) "300." "Watchmen" has a lot of complexity, beauty and some good thought-provoking material to go along with the action. The thing is, I think the overfaithful adaptation put off a lot of the general audience who weren't familiar with or didn't read the graphic novel. (I do think the Dr. Manhattan backstory was a bit too much.)

I LOVED THIS MOVIE!! I saw it 3 times in theatres. I cannot wait for the director's cut. Is it going to theatre's first? That's what I heard.

Wow, this is coming out faster than I expected.  Want to wait for the more definitive edition, but the temptation to pull the trigger on the 2-disc Blu-ray will be very strong.....

Great a must on blu ray amazing covers this movie is a spectacle visually stunning hope the transfer to blu will be as good as it was at the movies.

The 2-Disc DVD/Blu-Ray covers looks awesome.

Is there a reason Rorschach seems to be farting fire all over The Comedian?

Love the Blu Ray cover. This movie was, however, so overrated and overhyped. I'll pick it up when someone from Amazon.com is will to sell it for fifteen bucks.

I am ready to bet $10 that Warner will release a special-ultimate-collector's edition similar to last year 300 or I am Legend two weeks before christmas on this one. This is not enough "sugar-coated"...

No audio commentary? Even 300 had one.

will the director's cut also have the theatrical version?

"Squiddy, I got nothin' against ya..."

THE WILSON BROS

Nice.