I'm currently deciding right now whether or not to see the film. Obviously it's being hyped quite a bit right now in the media.
Having just finished the graphic novel for the first time, I thoroughly enjoyed the story, but think some of its cultural significance is lost on me because I didn't read it in a more timely fashion (circa 1986).
That said, I don't watch R rated films, for the most part. And I'm debating whether Watchmen will be one of the exceptions.
I do think it's quite odd how they have changed the ending though. ~Spoilers~
Rather than having the giant squid destroy New York, a nuclear explosion of blue destroys numerous cities, and it is all blamed on Doctor Manhattan. I think this ending actually works.. better. If that is not too blasphemous. It gives the idea of uniting against.. something more weight. In my opinion.
Anyway, curious what the hatrackers think and couldn't find another thread about it.
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
I will certainly be seeing it - and more than once. We're going to the midnight show on Thursday night, and then we'll see it on the IMAX in a couple weeks.
I'm a bit beyond my previous anticipation level of "Cautiously Optimistic" - I'm now "Really Frakking Excited." Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
me. I will watch it Though I cannot say I like the idea of a new ending. The old one is just fine.
Girl
But mostly I want to see Coraline and eat sushi too.
If the movie is not good, I will just have to buy the graphic novel
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
Of course I'm going to watch it! I've been looking forward to it for months (which I know is nothing compared to those who have been waiting for years or even decades).
As for the ending., I think there will probably be more to it than what you've said. Based on what I've read from those who have been fortunate enough to see it already, yes some things happen differently, but the spirit and themes of the source material is still there.
MAJOR SPOILERS
If it is as simple has Doc. M. taking the blame, I don't see why that would halt global hostilities. It doesn't create a lingering threat to all humanity since he leaves right after anyway. I have also heard that Manhattan is somehow involved in the new ending, but for it to work I think that Ozymandias still has to pin it on some alien menace.
In any case I do have to agree with Snyder that the teleportation of a genetically engineered psychic squid monster was probably a bit too nutty for most movie goers.
END SPOILERS Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Rather than having the giant squid destroy New York, a nuclear explosion of blue destroys numerous cities, and it is all blamed on Doctor Manhattan. I think this ending actually works.. better. If that is not too blasphemous.
So a giant squid destroying New York is LESS blasphemous than a nuclear holocaust?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Last I saw, Watchmen was getting around 81% on RT. I'll definitely go see it if I can gather some friends.
Oh, and as far as Coraline goes? Quite worth seeing- but if you can see it in 3-D, it's a whole other thing. Worth every penny in spectacle alone.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"So a giant squid destroying New York is LESS blasphemous than a nuclear holocaust?"
Well, Cthulhu would certainly be more than slightly offended if some idiot nuked the preyground.
[ March 02, 2009, 12:50 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk:
quote:Rather than having the giant squid destroy New York, a nuclear explosion of blue destroys numerous cities, and it is all blamed on Doctor Manhattan. I think this ending actually works.. better. If that is not too blasphemous.
So a giant squid destroying New York is LESS blasphemous than a nuclear holocaust?
Uh, yeah. I don't know what's wrong with the squid. The idea was to make people unite out of fear of something from out there. I don't think Jon is "out there" enough. He's too associated with the US, even if parts of the US get nuked.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I came into this thread expecting a philosophical discussion, aka Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? , not graphic novels and upcoming movies.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Moreover, I don't see what uniting against Dr. Manhattan would do for anyone. Especially since, once Dr. Manhattan is somehow killed (or, as he does here, leaves), they don't need to remain united for any reason. It's actually a MORE complicated "plan."
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I am going to have to start calling Dr. Manhattan "Water Guy" now.
Posted by manji (Member # 11600) on :
I could see how it might work. In the graphic novel, Dr. Manhattan said he would create life in another galaxy. If they decide to rewrite it to say that Dr. Manhattan decided to create life on Mars that would be inherently inimical to humanity, while at the same time implicating him in the nuclear strikes, they could effectively have the same ending.
Although, the Soviets might still decide to blame the United States.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I came into this thread expecting a philosophical discussion, aka Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? , not graphic novels and upcoming movies.
I would be really sad for you if I thought that was true.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
I've got to say, I haven't been able to come up with a plausible ending involving just a big, blue explosion...The US and the Soviets have their fingers on the nuclear button. Nothing but giant-sized evidence of extra-terrestrial danger would stop them from assuming it was the other guy...only the total shock of seeing the body of that squid works I'm really bummed about this.
Of course I'll still see it, I'm really excited. I just think the end should have remained the same; I wanted to see the shock on people who didn't read the book.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
And it wasn't just the dead body of the squid. It was the visions and nightmares anyone sensitive had following the squid's landing.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
I'm gonna see the midnight imax Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I came into this thread expecting a philosophical discussion, aka Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? , not graphic novels and upcoming movies.
elitist
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
SPOILERS
I read in a review that the weapon is used on civilian areas and locations containing both sides nuclear weapons, implying to some that it was a message from god.
SPOILERS (for the movie, anyway) END
The squid was still better, and it's not too nutty because of the scientific acceleration Dr. Manhattan brought to human kind. But most of it was always classified, and Ozymandius killed anyone else who knew about it.
[ March 02, 2009, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: umberhulk ]
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
*raises hand to be counted*
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I came into this thread expecting a philosophical discussion, aka Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? , not graphic novels and upcoming movies.
I would be really sad for you if I thought that was true.
I'm a little sad for me that I didn't.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I came into this thread expecting a philosophical discussion, aka Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? , not graphic novels and upcoming movies.
I would be really sad for you if I thought that was true.
Sorry if it makes you sad, but it is absolutely true. Until this thread I had never heard to the graphic novel The Watchmen or the upcoming movie. I'm not into graphic novels.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I came into this thread expecting a philosophical discussion, aka Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? , not graphic novels and upcoming movies.
I would be really sad for you if I thought that was true.
Sorry if it makes you sad, but it is absolutely true. Until this thread I had never heard to the graphic novel The Watchmen or the upcoming movie. I'm not into graphic novels.
Notice the capitalized "W".
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
But since I've never heard of "Watchmen", why in the world would I have suspected that it was a reference to a graphic novel and movie and not just misuse of capitalization and punctuation that is pervasive on the internet.
Also note that "the" is in the thread title (lower case t) even though it apparently isn't part of the movie or novel title which is really non-standard english. Would you say "Have you read the Ender's Game" or "Will you watch the Lost this week?"
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I came into this thread expecting a philosophical discussion, aka Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? , not graphic novels and upcoming movies.
I would be really sad for you if I thought that was true.
Sorry if it makes you sad, but it is absolutely true. Until this thread I had never heard to the graphic novel The Watchmen or the upcoming movie. I'm not into graphic novels.
Ooo! You got to get with the program!!!
*pushes you to your local library's graphic novel section, if there is none, takes you to Barnes and Nobles or Borders and hands you a copy of this awesome graphic novel and a stack of other really awesome GNs that are awesome.*
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
Rabbit, you must not watch tv. This movie is getting so much play... (I don't read graphic novels either). It seems much like any other super hero movie, but a bit darker. I will probably pass on watching...
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Sorry, No Barnes and Nobles or Borders near hear and the local library doesn't have a graphic novel section.
I don't actually care for pictures with my fiction reading. They interfere with my mental images. I really can't see myself ever getting in to graphic novels. If its a good story, leave the pictures out and I'll read it.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Alas... : o( No b and n... no Borders.
Well, Neil Gaiman has a lot of books that don't have pictures like American Gods Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
The art is great in and of itself. It's a different experience, and no less valid for being so.
There is a great deal of pulpist mentality in the genre, however.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
You know what is awesome? Kabuki by David Mack. This is because the art is just eye poppingly good.
Though at first it does seem sort of like a pulpy kind of thing filled with posing good looking Asian Chicks, but it's so much more than that.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
Maybe this thread should have a clear spoiler warning since people have been blatantly discussing the ending of the graphic novel, which is kind of a crappy thing to have spoiled if you haven't read it.
quote: It seems much like any other super hero movie, but a bit darker.
Not to sound like too much of a fanboy (heck, I only just read the graphic novel a few months ago) but it's not just "any other super hero movie". Watchmen is actually a pretty complex narrative which uses superheros to explore some rather interesting themes. It's not a 'guys in costumes beat up bad guys, save the world, and look cool doing it' sort of deal. I'm not saying that it is necessarily everyone's cup of tea, but I don't think that there's ever been a super hero movie like it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I really can't see myself ever getting in to graphic novels. If its a good story, leave the pictures out and I'll read it.
In the case of Watchmen, a great deal of the experience is the art. The visuals are fairly laden with symbolism, for one thing.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Rabbit, do you avoid movies and television and only listen to radio dramas? If it's a good story, why not just the actor's voices? Why use any visuals at all?
Now I'm tempted to send you Understanding Comics by Scott McCloud. Some stories are best told using sequential art. Some aren't.
Posted by Xann. (Member # 11482) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I came into this thread expecting a philosophical discussion, aka Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? , not graphic novels and upcoming movies.
I would be really sad for you if I thought that was true.
I don't see what is sad about that, that's what I entered for. I think that whoever is watching the guard may be more important.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
It's not sad so much as surprising. It's like having a thread called "Who's going to watch the Dark Knight" less than a week before the movie debuted and having people think it's a thread about a Medieval fair. Both the graphic novel and the movie have received a fair amount of attention in the comic & sci-fi/fantasy communities, as well as the mainstream. It was the only graphic novel on Time Magazine's 100 best novels of the century list.
But I guess the bottom line is that when something's a big deal to you sometimes it's hard to believe that others are totally oblivious to it. Posted by Lanfear (Member # 7776) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Also note that "the" is in the thread title (lower case t) even though it apparently isn't part of the movie or novel title which is really non-standard english. Would you say "Have you read the Ender's Game" or "Will you watch the Lost this week?"
For the record , as the OP I made the thread title exactly the way I wanted to. I love the latin phrase.
And if , "Have you read the Ender's Game", was a latin phrase, perhaps I would make a thread.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
The Rabbit, read Watchmen, man. I'm not much of a comics geak either, but I cant help but feel great respect for this book, and Alan Moore. In terms of its place in comics history and as a novel with great characters, powerfull events, a great alternate version of our history, and social commentary. It also uses a lot of genre defying devices, in storyline and art.
Any science fiction fan should read it.
Anyway, the reason I came into this thread: All due respect for Alan Moore, but ahahahaha
LAWL UMBERHULK!
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Yeah, I got a similar reaction there. Oh well, I thought it was funny if you know about Alan Moore and read the book.
And I've never seen anyone post a pic directly here, so I'm guessing people dont. I hope I'm right.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I plan on seeing it. I haven't read any info about it all, but I'm not surprised to hear the ending is modified slightly. I'm sort of half-expecting a VERY modified ending, or else a very modified beginning and middle, because I think most people would have a hard time with a movie in which the only remotely sympathetic or morally conscious character is murdered in cold blood and the rest of the pseudo-heroes are complicit in the annihilation of millions.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
You only find one character in Watchmen to be "remotely sympathetic or morally conscious"?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Absolutely.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
And it's the one character who sees everything absolutely black and white with no room for compromise?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
It's the one character who isn't willing to let a monster get away with a wink and a nod after murdering millions of people as part of an insane and BS master plan to "save" the human race.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
SPOILERS
But it's not like he's the only one who tried to stop him. After the fact, exposing what Veidt did would have only destroyed any good that came from it. The options were: 1) millions dead, world peace, one monster goes unpunished. 2) millions dead, person responsible is punished, human race remains of the brink of self destruction. (probably even closer to it than before).
From my perspective what Rorshach wanted to do was ultimately incredibly selfish.
END SPOILERS Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
I think most of them wanted to, but realized that turning Ozymandius in would mean they died for nothing. I'm just saying that saying that they arent morally concious is harsh.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Minor book spoilers ahead...
It's also the one character who nearly murders someone for buying some quack pills, just because the main ingredient was on some obscure government ban list. This despite the fact that the guy was suffering from incurable cancer and had no money or other means to treat himself.
Rorschach is one of my favorite characters in "Watchmen," but he is IMO no less "morally conscious" than any other character in the book. He just approaches gray from the opposite direction.
I also think describing the other heroes' response as "a wink and a nod" is a mischaracterization at best, and completely missing the point at worst.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Continue with spoiler warnings.
neo-dragon, I didn't buy those as the only two viable options when I read the graphic novel, and I don't buy it now. The author wrote *god* into the dang novel. There are other solutions to the problems that arise.
Tarrsk... I don't always appreciate the things Rorschach disapproves of, but I do appreciate his willingness to do whatever is necessary to fight against evil.
I think that every other "hero" involved capitulates to Ozy's plan with an absurdly small amount of consideration. I think the plan itself is insane and ridiculous, and the fact that everyone but Rorschach goes along with it so quickly is a massive moral failing.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
SPOILERS
But they didn't "go along" with the plan. They tried to stop it, and failed! Tell me how exposing Ozymandias would have helped a single person. What were the other options? Even Doctor Manhattan couldn't go back in time and undo what had happened. Millions died and nothing could change that. Why would you end the peace it created just to punish one man? It doesn't make the millions less dead. It just ensures that a lot more people will be joining them. I don't approve of Ozy's plan. As Manhattan's last words imply, I think that it only bought time and doesn't really end anything. But once it was carried out, exposing it would have done more harm than good.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
The only reason the human race was on the verge of self-annihilation is because Ozy drove Manhattan away in the first place... and possibly because Manhattan was foolish enough to let himself be associated so closely with the US.
If they care enough about earth's stability to be complicit in the senseless massacre of millions, they could have encouraged him to solve the world's problems.
It's definitely a deus ex machina solution. Luckily, Moore wrote Deus into the story, so, it works out.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I will also go on record as not knowing this movie was about to open and not having read the graphic novel. I did think the thread was about some movie or tv show when I saw the title, probably because I've vaguely heard of the GN. Anyway, I don't watch tv and sometimes pop culture passes me by entirely. I don't find it a great loss, or else I would keep up more. Not trying to be elitist, just mentioning that I prefer to spend my precious free time doing other things.
I don't have anything against graphic novels, though. I think it's a genre that has good and mediocre and bad stuff in it like any other, and I'm interested in reading the good stuff. The main fact that has held me back so far is that they're more expensive for the amount of story you get than regular word-only novels.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Okay guys, my girlfriend is home, and sick, so I'm taking a break from this conversation. I'll probably catch up with it in a while, unless it's totally moved on by then. Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
spoilers
Dr. Manhattan was growing more detatched from human kind, and most people thought that the Russians were going to attack anyway. True or not, that was the psychological state of the culture, so I dont blame the rest of the characters from realizing that letting the world think there was an alien attack, and therefore stopping conflict--where people on one side were going to die even if Dr. Manhattan stopped a nuclear holocaust-- at the cost of morally ambigious retribution.
I think they wished they could have stopped it, saving lives-- to them being a hero was never about punishing the wicked. They would have stopped it and hoped for a solution without killing anyone.
And, yeah, comics are expensive. I probably wouldnt but any if I didnt intend to let other people borrow them.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Spoiler perhaps?
I think Dr. Manhattan was a major wuss, which is ironic because he is the most powerful being EVER. And yet Rorschach, he was the one willing to do the right thing and stand up against Veilt at the risk of his life. Rorschach is awesome. If I had a black and white rabbit I'd name it after him. Although he's rather racist, homophobic and scarily conservative. Yet I like him best. Ironic.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Spoiler warning as usual.
What umberhulk said. Rorschach, ultimately, is the one costumed adventurer whose actions completely justify the public outcry against superheroes. People fear the heroes not because they fight crime, or take a stand against criminal elements, but because they are vigilantes, hiding their identities and acting as judge, jury and executioner all in one. No accountability. No second opinion. And yes, no compromise. Part of Alan Moore's point in writing Rorschach's character is that ultimately this is dangerous. Civilization cannot function if individuals are free to take the law into their own hands, and to mete out "justice" however they see fit.
Rorschach's honesty and devotion to his ideals are certainly admirable. That doesn't mean they can't also be frightening and immoral. And taken to its logical conclusion, if Rorschach had had anywhere near the power that Veidt commanded, the world would have been engulfed in bloodshed and destruction. Rorschach as an political and economic power, rather than a marginalized alley-walker, would have been Hitler Deux, Alexander the Great without the intellectual bent.
Dr. Manhattan is not a "wuss." He doesn't submit to Veidt's plan out of fear. Nor does he leave Earth out of cowardice. He is what Moore proposes that any truly superpowered entity would become: detached from the world, able to see so far and so broadly that each individual thing means nothing more than the next. It's the difference between standing next to the Empire State Building and trying to see it from the surface of the Moon.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
SPOILERS
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: The only reason the human race was on the verge of self-annihilation is because Ozy drove Manhattan away in the first place... and possibly because Manhattan was foolish enough to let himself be associated so closely with the US.
If they care enough about earth's stability to be complicit in the senseless massacre of millions, they could have encouraged him to solve the world's problems.
Are you kidding? The world was heading for disaster long before Manhattan was driven away. He was like the valve on a compressed gas container. The pressure was building and his presence was keeping it from exploding for the time being, but something was going to give.
I'm not saying that Ozymandias' solution was a good one or that I condone it, but the simple fact is that he did it... No one could stop it because they didn't see it coming. Thus, the issue of the character's morality with regards to the situation is based on what they chose to do after the fact. No one condoned it, but what does exposing the scheme fix? How is it right to pursue the punishment of one man if the price for it is plunging the world back into chaos?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Spoilers He really is a wuss though. He's the most powerful being, yet he's just a puppet for the united states government. He even remarks about how he's always just followed along. Like he got into pocket watches because his father wanted him too. Or when his father dumped out the watch pieces he got into nuclear science. He doesn't see the use of fighting the Vietnam war, but he goes along with it anyway. He's got the option and the power to just say no. He sees the future, past and present at the same time, but he just goes along like a puppet and he says he's the only one who can see the strings. Rorschach on the other hand is an ordinary human going out doing what he thinks is the right thing. He's an extremist and pretty insane if you ask me, but he still tries to do what he thinks is right and fight against crime. He'd never allow himself to become anyone's puppet the way Dr. Manhattan did. Of course that is just my opinion and warped interpretation.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Spoilery-doo.
I'll grant you that Jon Osterman was a wuss - at least in the sense that he was easily led. And early Dr. Manhattan maintained a certain amount of Osterman's wussiness in that respect. However, the as his realization of his power increases, so too does the detachment. By the time of the Comedian's murder, Manhattan only continues to do research for the government because he doesn't really have anything better to do. He certainly no longer fights crime nor protects American political interests - remember that he allows JFK to die, despite knowing about it long in advance and obviously having the capability to stop it.
I don't disagree that Dr. Manhattan's actions throughout the book are immoral (or at least amoral), from our perspective. I do think that Dr. Manhattan himself, at least in the post-Comedian time period, would consider all this talk of "doing the right thing" rather pointless. What is morality to a being that sees human beings as little more than their component atoms?
As for Rorschach... he may be doing what he thinks is right, but Moore is delving deeper than that. With Rorschach moreso than anyone else in "Watchmen," he is questioning the most basic premise of superhero stories: can we allow individuals to force their own moral code upon others, on pain of injury or death? Again, Rorschach was willing to kill over a criminal action as petty as owning a minor banned substance - the equivalent of murdering someone because they're using marijuana for medicinal purposes. Imagine if he were a real person, rather than a character in a comic book. Would you still condone his actions? His attitude? His approach to justice?
The fundamental idea behind "Watchmen" is an exploration of how the real world would react to "costumed adventurers." What would we do if we had to deal with the collateral damage Superman left behind? What kind of person would really dress up as a bat or an owl and go out at night to hunt criminals? And how would the existence of such men and women affect society as a whole? Moore posits that a true superman would inspire equal parts admiration and mind-melting terror (from friends and foes alike), and non-superpowered heroes would be viewed as vigilantes and extremists - and somewhat justifiably so.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
Ahhh. I had a lot of admiration for Watchmen after reading it for the first time, but every time I read a discussion of it online, I think it's even awesome...er.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by neo-dragon: SPOILERS
But it's not like he's the only one who tried to stop him. After the fact, exposing what Veidt did would have only destroyed any good that came from it. The options were: 1) millions dead, world peace, one monster goes unpunished. 2) millions dead, person responsible is punished, human race remains of the brink of self destruction. (probably even closer to it than before).
From my perspective what Rorshach wanted to do was ultimately incredibly selfish.
END SPOILERS
I disagree completely. What's Veidt's solution? To get the world united under some kind of dictatorship that pours all of its energy into defending against a non-existent threat?
The sequel to Watchmen would be that vast amounts of cash and effort go into weapons research, and after the threat doesn't turn up, the new weapons tech winds up destroying the planet anyway.
Nothing good comes from a lie.
As far as Rorschach goes, he's based on the Question, who was an explicitly Objectivist character. Moore knew that, and painted him as absurdly obsessed and blindered because that's what he thinks of Objectivism. In fact, if you look at page 21 in the last issue, the first panel says something like "Now what would you call that? 'Blotting out reality', perhaps?" "Blotting out reality" is a phrase taken from John Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged. It's clear that Moore didn't think of Rorschach as dying heroically, but I disagree with him, too.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I came into this thread expecting a philosophical discussion, aka Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? , not graphic novels and upcoming movies.
I would be really sad for you if I thought that was true.
Sorry if it makes you sad, but it is absolutely true. Until this thread I had never heard to the graphic novel The Watchmen or the upcoming movie. I'm not into graphic novels.
Well... The graphic novel IS a discussion of Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?. Maybe not entirely philosophical, but certainly based off the question.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: As far as Rorschach goes, he's based on the Question, who was an explicitly Objectivist character. Moore knew that, and painted him as absurdly obsessed and blindered because that's what he thinks of Objectivism. In fact, if you look at page 21 in the last issue, the first panel says something like "Now what would you call that? 'Blotting out reality', perhaps?" "Blotting out reality" is a phrase taken from John Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged. It's clear that Moore didn't think of Rorschach as dying heroically, but I disagree with him, too.
Rorschach was not an Objectivist.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Lisa, Moore is on the record that Rorschach was based only partially on the Question. He was more strongly modeled after Ditko's lesser-known (and far more extreme) vigilante Mister A...who indeed was a crazy, crazy character, whether Ditko realized it or not.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
My mistake, I got the Question and Mister A mixed up.
What do you see as crazy about Mister A?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: As far as Rorschach goes, he's based on the Question, who was an explicitly Objectivist character. Moore knew that, and painted him as absurdly obsessed and blindered because that's what he thinks of Objectivism. In fact, if you look at page 21 in the last issue, the first panel says something like "Now what would you call that? 'Blotting out reality', perhaps?" "Blotting out reality" is a phrase taken from John Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged. It's clear that Moore didn't think of Rorschach as dying heroically, but I disagree with him, too.
Rorschach was not an Objectivist.
No kidding. He was, however, Moore's parody of an Objectivist. That's exactly why he included the line from Atlas Shrugged.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: My mistake, I got the Question and Mister A mixed up.
What do you see as crazy about Mister A?
The guy openly states he has no mercy or compassion for the "guilty"...in fact, he quite often lets them die terrible deaths.
But what if he was mistaken about someone's guilt? He's not God. A complete and total lack of mercy + a refusal to ever even consider he's wrong= crazy. Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
Strangely enough, Rorschach admired the Comedian despite his obviously amoral actions, even defending his attempted rape of Sally Jupiter as a mere "moral lapse". He'd killed other people for such "moral lapses". I guess he had a soft spot for potential father figures.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I don't get his admiration of the Comedian, but it's a good graphic novel because everyone is so complex.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
As I said, I suspect that it's a father figure thing. He even invented an image of his own father as some great man even though he'd never met him. If Veidt was 20 years older Rorschach probably would have been on his side.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: No kidding. He was, however, Moore's parody of an Objectivist. That's exactly why he included the line from Atlas Shrugged.
Rorschach is not Moore's parody of an Objectivist. Even Steve Ditko will assure you that. If as written he was a parody of an objectivist he would be a bad one, as his actions and ideals are most questionable morally where and when they depart from how a hypothetical comic ideal of Objectivism would act.
That said, 'absurdly obsessed and blindered' as a critique would be an effective parody because it hits pretty close to home for Randians, who are notoriously cultish and obsessive.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Obviously it must be good if it generates this wide a difference of opinions on the meanings and the motivations of various characters. Y'all are intriguing me. Is it a single graphic novel or a series?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
A single one. Read it.
REEEEEEAAAAAAAAAD IT!
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I liked the graphic novel, but honestly I think I enjoyed the "Under the Hood*" excerpts that were interspersed throughout the book [more].
*For those who haven't read the novel, Under the Hood is the fictitious autobiography of a superhero from the first generations of heroes in the book's universe. I would happily buy and read it if someone talented were to write the whole thing.
[Edited to add the word "more"]
[ March 03, 2009, 08:53 PM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Obviously it must be good if it generates this wide a difference of opinions on the meanings and the motivations of various characters. Y'all are intriguing me. Is it a single graphic novel or a series?
Just stop somewhere where you can buy comics, and ask the local fauna for the complete Watchmen. It'll have a smiley face with some blood dripped on it on the cover.
Even though I think that comics are a pretty bunk medium full of pablum, Watchmen is legitimately one of the better works under any medium. There's more substance to it than there is in many bestseller novels.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Obviously it must be good if it generates this wide a difference of opinions on the meanings and the motivations of various characters. Y'all are intriguing me. Is it a single graphic novel or a series?
Both, actually. I just reread it this past weekend, and I read the original 12 issues that I got as they were coming out. But the 12 issue series is packaged as a single bound volume and sold as the graphic novel it actually is. You can get it in probably any bookstore now that the movie is coming out so soon.
There's also a parody called Watchmensch, which basically portrays some of the problems Alan Moore had with DC comics. I haven't read it yet, but I'm looking forward to it.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: No kidding. He was, however, Moore's parody of an Objectivist. That's exactly why he included the line from Atlas Shrugged.
Rorschach is not Moore's parody of an Objectivist. Even Steve Ditko will assure you that. If as written he was a parody of an objectivist he would be a bad one, as his actions and ideals are most questionable morally where and when they depart from how a hypothetical comic ideal of Objectivism would act.
Yes, he was a parody of an Objectivist. And no, I don't think Steve Ditko would say otherwise. Also, I don't think Moore intended it as a parody; I suspect he really thinks that's how Objectivists think and act. They aren't.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: That said, 'absurdly obsessed and blindered' as a critique would be an effective parody because it hits pretty close to home for Randians, who are notoriously cultish and obsessive.
I wouldn't know. The few Objectivists I've met aren't like that. Randians are something else.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Yes, he was a parody of an Objectivist.
If your response is "Nuh uh" my response is "Yeah huh" and we can go around in circles for a while, I'm sure.
quote:Also, I don't think Moore intended it as a parody; I suspect he really thinks that's how Objectivists think and act.
Moore is pretty aware that objectivists aren't relentless statists who are willing to commit to force, fraud, and invasion of privacy where and when they consider the losses involved to be collateral damage in the pursuit of fervent right-wing statist nationalism, because Moore is not an idiot. Rorschach is not an objectivist or a faux-objectivist and it's telling that objectivists are so worried about moore's disdain for objectivism that they would assume these things about rorschach.
quote: The few Objectivists I've met aren't like that.
The many objectivists I've met are like that.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
How do you explain the "blotting out reality" comment? Look at it in context, and tell me that wasn't a slam at Rorschach as an Objectivist strawman.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It seems like a more obvious pun on, y'know, his blots. Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I guess someone who doesn't recognize the phrase might think that.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
I guess someone who is sensitive to criticisms of objectivist philosophy might interpret the comment in that light.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: How do you explain the "blotting out reality" comment? Look at it in context, and tell me that wasn't a slam at Rorschach as an Objectivist strawman.
In context, Rorscach is a man with an inkblot as a face.
In context, a google search for the phrase doesn't show that the phrase is assuredly one fundamentally associated with Ayn Rand or any character in her novels.
In whole, that Moore intended it as a slam at Objectivism is fundamentally a bald assumption by you, of which we have no proof.
So if this is the proof you are relying on to make Rorschach into an "Objectivist strawman" then I'm letting the jury go home early, since it's not a real case, what with beyond that Rorschach not actually acting like an Objectivist, or philosophizing as an Objectivist, in external or internal monologue or in his diary. Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Wow. A. This broad needs Valerian tea. B. She's making me want to see the movie MORE. Not that I like gore and everything, but it sounds true to the comic to an extent. But dang does she need to chill.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
People like this annoy me. Watchmen has not been marketed as a family-friendly superhero movie at all, and this woman clearly knew NOTHING about the source material going into it. This is not Spider-man! She claims that it's marketed at kids because there are "action figures"? They're collector's pieces priced at nearly $200 a set! Yes, clearly they're meant for your 6 year old to play with. The R rating should have been enough of a hint, but I guess she thought that it was going to be one of those "nice" R-rated films.
quote: If you see it yourself, you're also probably a moron and a vapid, indecent human being.
If you say so.
*edited to rant more.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
EXACTLY! Which is why she is burning my biscuits, broiling my bacon.
She should read the GN but she will not. Instead she will say it's evil and bad and evil and depraved.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: B. She's making me want to see the movie MORE.
Holy crap, no kidding. Now I REALLY can't wait
Edit: Found this in one of the comments to that article:
quote:The action figures are not being marketed to kids. They are being marketed to adults. Loser adults, yes, but adults nonetheless.
Yikes. I really should not let myself read comments, be it youtube or a blog. It makes me think evil and angry thoughts.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Oh my god.
That entire article could be titled "Debbie Schlussel could not possibly have been more clueless about Watchmen"
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Oh my god.
That entire article could be titled "Debbie Schlussel could not possibly have been more clueless about Watchmen"
I want a rorsharch figure... And one of those expensive Joker figures... But I am responsible.
I didn't even by that video game I wanted. Or that wine... Or that 6 dollar orange juice because I'm not paying that much for orange juice even if it's the best I've had.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Oh my god.
That entire article could be titled "Debbie Schlussel could not possibly have been more clueless about Watchmen"
Wait, that wasn't the title? I swear it was!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
oh my god. x2.
I just finished reading this and I changed my mind. "Debbie Schlussel could not possibly have made a stupider article if she was deliberately trying."
that was the dumbesrtffff urrgh i lost some brain cells
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
The best (worst?) part was the all Caps responses to her comments. And I quote: "You flipping Watchmen idiots." o_O
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
Honestly, that article was the stupidest thing I've read on the internet in weeks... and this is the internet I'm talking about!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
auuuuugh my braaaaaaaaain
oh goddddd
not can think smart no more
debbie lady ate brain, sam no more can do smart stuff
do not read debbie lady words, they full of hurt and dumb
Posted by Jeorge (Member # 11524) on :
Hooray! I'm going to go see it tonight - then I can read all the spoilers in here! Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
Just remember to post spoiler warnings yourself. I want to be surprised by changes between the movie and the book.
Oh, and in the words of Debbie:
quote:K: AH, YES--THE BACKGROUND EXCUSE. SO, IF THERE'S A "BACKGROUND" OF A "GRAPHIC NOVEL" THAT MAKES ALL OF THIS GRAPHIC VIOLENCE AND DEPRAVITY LIKE TOTALLY AWESOME. I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IT'S ABOUT AND THE BACKGROUND, AND THAT DOESN'T JUSTIFY A THING. SO SAD FOR HITLER--HE COMMITTED SUICIDE WAY TOO SOON. IF HE'D ONLY HUNG ON TO THE YEAR 2009 AND THE "BACKGROUND" AND "GRAPHIC NOVEL" EXCUSE, THAT WOULD MAKE THINGS SO MUCH BETTER. I GOT THE "MESSAGE"--NOT SURE HOW IT JUSTIFIES A THING. SOME SAY HITLER HAD A "GREAT MESSAGE." EVER READ MEIN KAMPF? I GUESS MAYBE A MESSAGE JUSTIFIES COOKING PEOPLE IN OVENS, TOO. BUT, HEY, HE FORGOT TO MAKE MEIN KAMPF INTO A GRAPHIC NOVEL. BIG MISTAKE.
OH, AND YES, LET'S MAKE THE WORLD EVEN MORE OF A DARK SCARY PLACE BY MAKING THESE KINDS OF MOVIES TO BE INHALED BY PEOPLE LIKE YOU. AWESOME. DS]
This woman apparently doesn't understand the difference between fiction and reality.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
AUGH HER WORDS ARE LIKE MIND POISON
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I know. I need a helmet to block her stupiditiness from seeping into my brain... She probably has never read Spawn or seen the animated series either, huh? Man, she sucks... She is uncool.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:At the same time, the Soviets are about to nuke America. It's 1985 and Nixon is President. We've won in Vietnam. Oh, and Henry Kissinger has a Russian accent.
While I'm on the subject of having my brain cells die upon exposure to debbie's words, who wants to bet that they gave Kissinger an accent that is accurate, and that Debbie Schlussel is simply unaware that Kissinger has that accent?
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote: Schlussel, who speaks Hebrew, Arabic, French, and Russian, works closely with several Federal law enforcement agencies, consulting on fighting the domestic War on Terrorism, and has provided them with much useful information.
I'm not sure which is more disturbing...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I had the advantage of knowing beforehand that Debbie is profoundly retarded. Trust me. She writes stuff that makes the recent World Watches seem downright tame and reasonable. But now I can witness the added glory of knowing that she's a stalwart "Conservative answer" to the .. uh, apparent .. liberal hollywood review structure, or something.
Seriously. Schlussel considers herself a movie reviewer? My cup runneth over.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
I have nothing further to add to this discussion of Schlussel. I just wanted to make another page to this thread.
No, seriously, I really thought her article was ridiculous. She is obviously uninformed about the purpose and basis of "The Watchmen" and is sensationalist beyond reason.
That said, I'm not going to be in a huff over the article. Posted by Jeorge (Member # 11524) on :
Coming out of the theater, we all asked each other "What did you think of it?" and the typical answer was, "I'm not sure yet," or "I've got to think about it." This was the answer from both the people who had read the graphic novel and the people who hadn't (like me).
In this thread there is some discussion about a change to the ending of the story. Having never read the GN, all the spoiler comments in this thread made sense to me, so I think they must have done a pretty good job of incorporating the change into the plot.
I still haven't decided what I think of the movie, but I'm still thinking about it, which means the movie is at least memorable. Posted by Jeorge (Member # 11524) on :
I read the Schmuckel review, and my first thought was that people are being too hard on her. If you start from the premise that this is being marketed to children (a premise which I doubt), then the review contains some reasonable warnings.
Her true idiocy, though, comes out in the comments, where it becomes obvious that she thinks 1. if parents take children to see it, that's proof that it was marketed to that audience, and 2. her writing is essentially holy writ, and whoever reads it but doesn't agree with it has reading comprehension problems. Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeorge: I read the Schmuckel review, and my first thought was that people are being too hard on her. If you start from the premise that this is being marketed to children (a premise which I doubt), then the review contains some reasonable warnings.
But that's the problem, it really isn't being marketed to children, and I can't understand how anyone can think that it is. You're not going to see Watchmen ads during Saturday morning cartoons. No Doctor Manhattan toys are going to be packed with happy meals. Oh, and there's the fact that it's clearly rated R! She makes the claim that a lot of parents don't care to take notice of the rating and thus she must warn them, but chances are the parents who don't bother to check movie ratings aren't going to be reading her writing anyway. Her real premise seems to be that any film with people in costumes is being marketed to kids, but she gives no evidence to support it. The only arguments that she's given is that there are "toys" (she doesn't reply to the repeated comments that the figures are obviously not meant to be children's toys), and the fact that the trailers are shown before pg-13 movies. *sigh* I've spent too much time being annoyed by this.
By the way, can kids even get into R-rated movies in the States? Here in Canada, I got carded twice when I saw Kill Bill, which is actually more security than I go through entering a night club or casino.
Posted by Jeorge (Member # 11524) on :
Oh, I grant you all that. All I'm saying is, if we permit her that one piece of stupidity (and I can't say how stupid it is, because I haven't paid any attention to the advertising), at least her review is internally fairly consistent. Which is why I said her true stupidity is really showcased in the comments, much more so than the review.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeorge: Oh, I grant you all that. All I'm saying is, if we permit her that one piece of stupidity (and I can't say how stupid it is, because I haven't paid any attention to the advertising), at least her review is internally fairly consistent. Which is why I said her true stupidity is really showcased in the comments, much more so than the review.
Even when she is analyzing the movie from a perspective of 'it was marketed to kids' she talks about the movie in a way which belies her cluelessness as to the point of the movie.
It's like watching Pulp Fiction and then going "Ugh, it was a movie about shooting black children."
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
Apparently Debbie What's-her-name thought that that was an accurate representation of Watchmen. No wonder she was so upset when she saw the movie.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah, someone should hack her site to say "it was NOTHING like the saturday morning cartoon"
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: I don't get his admiration of the Comedian, but it's a good graphic novel because everyone is so complex.
I think it was related to his commitment and lifestyle. Because, I think part of Rorschach doubted what he was doing on some level -- doubting that he was doing more good than bad. Few people are truly close minded, but he still refused to concede. He respected The Comedian because he had lived the majority of his life that way.
And more of a musing: Maybe Rorshach considered "Kovaks(his real identity)" his father.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
I just saw it.
INCREDIBLE.
Spoilerish
The audience broke into thunderous applause at least 3 times. Twice during prison scenes (the oil being the first), once during the end of the sex scene.
The visuals were magnificent. I was worried they'd get a bit tiresome, but I was completely wrong.
Posted by EP Kaplan (Member # 10855) on :
I was disappointed with a few divergences.
SPOILERS AHOY!
To start: Giant squid.
The kidnapper scene: Sling Blade, anyone? I don't care if the philistines who never read the comic call it a "Saw rip-off", Rorschach should have burned down the house.
Giant squid.
The interview scene is among the most filmable in the graphic novel, and potentially the most striking. To **** with it over a fight scene practically yanked from 300 (these aren't super strong superheroes; that's the point) is absurd.
Squid me!
Speaking of fights, let's discuss violence. Watchmen had some realism in its pages. When the audience starts laughing at the blood, you know you've failed to get the point across.
Cephalopods, man.
It's also, in a sense, clearly for a much older than the comic. Like certain books, I could see giving Watchmen to a mature middle-high schooler. I'd have a few more qualms about taking them to see the movie.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
Just got out of seeing it so SPOILERS!
It was very faithful in an odd kind of way. Personally, I loved that they kept Adrian's giant mutant cat.
The soundtrack is probably the funniest part of the movie. My friend and I nearly lost it when they started playing "99 Red Balloons." My second favorite moment was courtesy of the teen girl in front of me who asked her friend "Who was Nixon?"
Nixon and John's "junk" was a constant source of hilarity for our audience. You would think after so many naked shots of John, the teenage boys would get bored giggling over it. But you'd be wrong.
I just get this sense that so much of the movie was unnecessary. Unnecessarily long sex scene, unnecessary bloody innards hanging from the ceiling, etc. I wish the guy in the editing room realized that human beings have imaginations and don't need to see everything, including the guy getting his arms sawed off.
Its been a few months since I first read Watchmen and I've stayed away in order not to spoil the movie for myself, so I'd forgotten how Rorschach killed the kidnapper. But I WAS screaming for him to burn the place down during the film. The cleaver to the skull (again, unnecessarily long shot) was just so obviously wrong for his character.
Personally, I feel wary of recommending this movie to anyone who hasn't already read the graphic novel.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Continue Spoiler Warning
EP Kaplan, I believe Jon's actual interview was also intercut with scenes of Nite Owl and Silk Spectre fighting random thugs. Admittedly, the fight scenes weren't as detailed or graphic, but it was still done the same way.
I didn't mind the lack of giant squid. Honestly, I feel the twist ending is twisty enough without the audience having to also accept the apparent existence of telepathic powers that can be engineered into a giant squid-thing and will apparently kill copious amounts of people. It was a hard sell in the graphic novel, and I think it would have been harder in film.
Anyway, I felt this was a phenomenally well done graphic-novel-to film. I can't think of many done better, and certainly not any of the other films based on Moore's works.
I also felt they actually improved on the ending. Not the squid ending, but the real ending: Rorschach's death. Having Nite Owl witness the murder, and have a reaction to it, was an excellent change. Instead of portraying Nite Owl (and everyone else involved) as a pathetic, spineless, loathesome worm devoid of anything resembling admirable qualities, they at least show he has some human emotion. It was good. It made the BS "everything's sunshine and rainbows" ending slightly more palateable.
Anyway, I need to get up for work in a couple of hours, so I'm done for now.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I watched the watchmen.
It was a good movie. I must say I liked it.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
I really, really liked it, and I plan to see it again.
I didn't have issues with the violence and sex the way most people seem to. The graphic novel is hideously violent and gratuitous -- it just doesn't strike you as such when you're looking at still panels of artwork as when it's being realized live-action. I thought everyone was cast perfectly (especially Nite Owl and Rorschach)and I just enjoyed the heck out of the whole thing.
Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
I really, really, really enjoyed it.
I am a uber-fanboy purist. But overall I give it a big thumbs up.
SPOILERS
SPOILERS
SPOILERS
SPOILERS AHEAD!
I read it when it came out and had to wait a month between each 12 issues. I read it two to 10 times a year since it came out. Zac Snyder did such a wonderful job of both making it his own while staying true to the comic.
Yes. The ending was NO WHERE NEAR AS GOOD as the GN. I am cool with that. It is a reward for reading it. It had so much good stuff in it. I am happy and satisfied.
Posted by Abyss (Member # 3086) on :
I'm a big fan of the graphic novel. This movie was a disappointment for me. I still enjoyed it, but it was a disappointment.
SPOILERS
They took every opportunity to pander to the lowest common denominator. The gore was off the charts and the sex scene was totally gratuitous. I hated the Silk Specters' interactions -- yellow jumpsuit girl gave a terrible, wooden performance, and her mom was acting as hard as she could and still came off as terrible.
That said, the Comedian was spot on, Rorschach was brilliant, and I was a fan of Ozy. The ending worked just fine, except that there was a stupid epilogue tacked on with Dan and Yellow Jumpsuit Girl.
And they took out the best scene -- where Adrian gets to be a human being rather than a villian. In the GN Adrian asks Dr. Manhattan if he did the right thing. Instead of that they have Yellow Jumpsuit Girl paraphrase his response. Oh, and then they have an epic conversation about Dan's penis working again, barely cloaked in innuendo.
As for Rorschach admiring the Comedian, one thing they played down in the movie was Rorschach's patriotism. Rorschach admired the Comedian because the Comedian was a veteran who had served his country faithfully for a long time -- despite the fact that he did it because he was a lunatic, which I think Rorschach realized he wasn't in a good position to criticize.
quote:Maybe if I make a movie about how Eisenhower was President in 1972, we "lost" World War II, and Bin Laden was gonna bomb the World Trade Center then, I'll be cool, too. . . so long as it's "dark" and I include a bunch of rape, torture, explicit sex scenes, and extremely graphic killings, and oh, write a "graphic novel" a/k/a comic book about it, first.
I'm listening...
Posted by Abyss (Member # 3086) on :
Oh, and when the soundtrack wasn't brilliant, it was super out of place and distracting.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
quote:except that there was a stupid epilogue tacked on with Dan and Yellow Jumpsuit Girl.
Like the one in the graphic novel? >.>
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Some thoughts, in no particular order:
Bubastis was strange and out of place now that she isn't necessary to demonstrate humanity's prowess at genetic manipulation. If you don't need the squid, you don't need Bubastis.
I don't think having Jon sub in for the squid as Veidt's fall-guy worked for me. When they showed Nixon's address talking about how Earth should unite against Jon I wanted to scream "You don't unite against God!"
Whoever did the casting did a pretty damn good job, overall. I was repeatedly struck by how much the characters in the movie looked like their counterparts from the novel.
quote:Oh, and when the soundtrack wasn't brilliant, it was super out of place and distracting.
This.
quote:I didn't have issues with the violence and sex the way most people seem to. The graphic novel is hideously violent and gratuitous -- it just doesn't strike you as such when you're looking at still panels of artwork as when it's being realized live-action.
I had an issue with it for exactly this reason. An effective adaptation should account for this.
Posted by EP Kaplan (Member # 10855) on :
Oh. And Halloween, enough said.
I will say that be ditching the squid, the were able to eliminate huge swaths of interwoven backstory. The newsstand, Black Freighter, much of the newspaper wars, large chunks of Veidt's plan, the missing writer, among other things, were able to be cut, along with a good hour or two of sitting in a theater.
I loved that Vietnam scene that referenced Vern's opera records, though.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Instead of portraying Nite Owl (and everyone else involved) as a pathetic, spineless, loathesome worm devoid of anything resembling admirable qualities,
I still don't get where you're coming from with that. I still don't understand what you think they should have done, but okay...
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
That movie was awesome, I don't see why it got such bad reviews. The music didn't match at some parts, and the movie kinda dragged on but overall it was one of the best comic book movie ever!
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
I won't be surprised if it gets taken down soon.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:At the same time, the Soviets are about to nuke America. It's 1985 and Nixon is President. We've won in Vietnam. Oh, and Henry Kissinger has a Russian accent.
While I'm on the subject of having my brain cells die upon exposure to debbie's words, who wants to bet that they gave Kissinger an accent that is accurate, and that Debbie Schlussel is simply unaware that Kissinger has that accent?
Kissenger's accent in Watchmen was indeed spot on (the real Kissenger is German, as is his Watchmen counterpart)
I really don't know why she thought the accent was Russian, maybe she's mostly deaf along with being mostly stupid?
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
Dogbreath that was mean! Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Compared with all the other comments about her review in this thread?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
She does seem chronically misinformed.
Which is why I will ignore her completely and reread Watchmen when I can get it from the library.
I also still want a Rorschach figure.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
BTW, this is totally random, but did TVs have digital volume displays like Blake's did in 1985? Both my brother and I thought that that seemed like a rather obvious anachronism. Maybe my family was just ghetto, but I remember having to get up to adjust the volume as a young child, and I was born in '83.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
That's because you didn't have a remote control, not because you didn't have a digital volume display.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
Volume was adjusted with a dial, and the remote couldn't turn the dial for you. Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by neo-dragon: BTW, this is totally random, but did TVs have digital volume displays like Blake's did in 1985? Both my brother and I thought that that seemed like a rather obvious anachronism. Maybe my family was just ghetto, but I remember having to get up to adjust the volume as a young child, and I was born in '83.
Remember, Doctor Manhattan's presence caused an artificial acceleration of technology. Electric cars, genetically engineered animals...entertainment technology was probably affected as well.
Posted by manji (Member # 11600) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: Remember, Doctor Manhattan's presence caused an artificial acceleration of technology. Electric cars, genetically engineered animals...entertainment technology was probably affected as well.
In the graphic novel, maybe. I thought he was working on the solution to the energy problem in the film, along with Veidt. For example, the kid reading the Tales of the Black Freighter comic is leaning on a fire hydrant in the film, not an electric car pump, as in the graphic novel. You know this is deliberate, because you can actually see an electric car pump at the end of the film.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by manji: You know this is deliberate, because you can actually see an electric car pump at the end of the film.
Was it? That would raise the question on why Hollis Mason's car mechanic sign remains unchanged.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
SPOILERS!
The sex scene was pornographic, but then, so were some of the violence scenes. It's funny, but I'm glad the issues were given equal time. At least the sex scene was affective, when Silk II braced her leg on the machinery, I became both hot and bothered. I felt like I was watching a very good smut film. I could have done without a few of the fight scenes, especially the Dan & Silk ones. I just didn't need it. His were unbelievable because he was supposed to be out of shape, and hers because of her shoes. Kelly from the Bad News Bears was awesome as Rorschach. He made the one liners seem thoughtful and direct instead of campy or glib. I don't think I've ever seen that done in an action film. I only really missed two scenes as a whole: The Rorschach development scene where a woman is beaten in front of an apt., and everyone watches fecklessly, and Hollis' death, which is one of the most moving parts of the book, for me.
I think Serenity is better, but Snyder succeeded in making a movie about a gang of crazies interesting. btw, after watching Rorschach deal with bullies, I can't imagine any scene in a film version of Ender's Game being too graphic.
[ March 08, 2009, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It wasn't just a woman by the way. It was Kitty Genovese. That happened in real life. Folks just sat and watched and did nothing waiting for other people to call the police. Deeply sad.
This talks about it in a more accurate way.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
Did anyone else think of Ender when young Kovacs beats the tar out of the two kids taunting him?
Kovacs/Rorschach doesn't start all the fights he gets into, but he sure ends them.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I really appreciated the graphic fight scenes. Not because they were cool to watch, but because they were so painful and jarring. Look! This is what happens when your favorite superheroes beat the crap out of thugs. Permanent, crippling injuries.
The Kitty Genovese story has been lurking in my mind ever since Harlan Ellison wrote about it in several of his short stories in the 70s. Perfect example of the inhumanity of crowds.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
I loved it. I saw it in Imax and cant wait for the director's cut.
I laughed during the scene where Dr. manhattan was in his giant form in Vietnam-- the music choice felt so obvious it was corny.
I wonder if Dan's passcode for his owl ship is Night Owl, because he actually tried typing in Ozymandius at Adran's computer.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Yes, using Fight of the Valkyries was over the top, but I think that's the director's style. Being Over the Top. He did that in 300.
Which I should watch again and not because of all of the men not wearing shirts. Oh, no.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: I wonder if Dan's passcode for his owl ship is Night Owl, because he actually tried typing in Ozymandius at Adran's computer.
LOL.
It never ceases to amaze me how people in movies, books, and tv shows always choose passwords that can be guessed by anyone who's ever met them. Even the world's smartest man couldn't come up with a password that an old acquaintance couldn't guess in two minutes.
quote:The sex scene was pornographic
Actually, to me it seemed somewhat tame compared to what some people were saying about it. It was no more smutty than what you see in HBO shows like the Sopranos. In other words, it's about what I would expect from a sex scene in an R-rated film.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by neo-dragon:
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: I wonder if Dan's passcode for his owl ship is Night Owl, because he actually tried typing in Ozymandius at Adran's computer.
LOL.
It never ceases to amaze me how people in movies, books, and tv shows always choose passwords that can be guessed by anyone who's ever met them. Even the world's smartest man couldn't come up with a password that an old acquaintance couldn't guess in two minutes.
I think Ozymandias wanted Nite Owl to find the truth, I'm sure Ozy' has a photographic memory so I doubt he'd need to keep those things on his own computer.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Ozymandias didn't seem the least bit surprised to have them show up. I think he wanted someone to explain his plan to, and so chose an easy password.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I don't even believe this broad. I can't even read it because she's so... ARGS! She sounds rather like a small child that knows really big words.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: Ozymandias didn't seem the least bit surprised to have them show up. I think he wanted someone to explain his plan to, and so chose an easy password.
Well, he set up Rorshach so I doubt it. But I never said minded the actual password.
Also, the hacker in Live for free or Die Hard uses his last name as his alias. How stupid do you have to be if your one of the best hackers?
Also also, i'm thinking of a funny Veronica mars scene right now.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
I don't even believe this broad. I can't even read it because she's so... ARGS! She sounds rather like a small child that knows really big words.
...and your response is to give her free exposure by posting a link to her on a high traffic message board?
But that trick never works!
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:The sex scene was pornographic
It's amusing that 90% of the time Dr. Manhattan is on screen he's dangling about... but dear lord that sex scene was way too much for me to handle!
quote:I wonder if Dan's passcode for his owl ship is Night Owl, because he actually tried typing in Ozymandius at Adran's computer.
The "smartest man in the world" uses a password that's written on a book binding no more than two feet from the computer?!? I audibly reacted to that one, much to the chagrin of everyone around me.
And I felt so old... I giggled when I saw Warhol, Bowie, Breshnev with Castro, Kissinger... I don't think anyone within twenty feet of me at the theater knew who those people were (well, it is Miami, so half the theater did point and say "Hey, Castro!").
And I don't remember Nixon having as phallic looking of a nose as he did in the movie.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
I heard someone in the theater say "Hey, Che!"
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote:I laughed during the scene where Dr. manhattan was in his giant form in Vietnam-- the music choice felt so obvious it was corny.
That's a reference (albeit an out-of-place one) to a part of the graphic novel. Hollis Mason's "Under the Hood" recalls a story about a man who relates tragic news while blasting Ride of the Valkyries. I'm sure it was a shout-out. The only song that really bugged me was Cohen's Hallelujah -- just the beginning, though -- I liked it after the choir kicked in. There are so many better versions of that song!
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I don't even believe this broad. I can't even read it because she's so... ARGS! She sounds rather like a small child that knows really big words.
...and your response is to give her free exposure by posting a link to her on a high traffic message board?
But that trick never works!
You have a point... I should try to ignore her...
But she's so annoying.
But not ignoring things that annoy me gives me a stomach ache. So perhaps it is I who needs the valerian tea.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Leonide:
quote:I laughed during the scene where Dr. manhattan was in his giant form in Vietnam-- the music choice felt so obvious it was corny.
That's a reference (albeit an out-of-place one) to a part of the graphic novel. Hollis Mason's "Under the Hood" recalls a story about a man who relates tragic news while blasting Ride of the Valkyries. I'm sure it was a shout-out. The only song that really bugged me was Cohen's Hallelujah -- just the beginning, though -- I liked it after the choir kicked in. There are so many better versions of that song!
Yes, Jeff Buckley's, but we will be pelted with tomatoes.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
quote:Originally posted by Leonide:
quote:I laughed during the scene where Dr. manhattan was in his giant form in Vietnam-- the music choice felt so obvious it was corny.
That's a reference (albeit an out-of-place one) to a part of the graphic novel. Hollis Mason's "Under the Hood" recalls a story about a man who relates tragic news while blasting Ride of the Valkyries. I'm sure it was a shout-out. The only song that really bugged me was Cohen's Hallelujah -- just the beginning, though -- I liked it after the choir kicked in. There are so many better versions of that song!
It's also a homage to Apocalypse now. (haven't seen it)
I cant wait for the directer's cut, and I hope "The Beginning is the End is the Beginning" is in it. It's going to be three hours and ten minutes, according to Chud.
It's ironic that they went with the Hendrix version of Watch Tower, when the book quotes Bbob Dylan.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Hendrix's is more rocky, and that was more appropriate for the scene? I'm not sure about that either.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
I don't understand the criticism of the soundtrack. I for one thought it was brilliant.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by aeolusdallas: I don't understand the criticism of the soundtrack. I for one thought it was brilliant.
Gonna buy the soundtrack first chance I get.
The people around me were laughing because I was singing along to 99 Luftballons in flawless German.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Um...how loudly were you singing along to 99 Luftballoons?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:At the same time, the Soviets are about to nuke America. It's 1985 and Nixon is President. We've won in Vietnam. Oh, and Henry Kissinger has a Russian accent.
While I'm on the subject of having my brain cells die upon exposure to debbie's words, who wants to bet that they gave Kissinger an accent that is accurate, and that Debbie Schlussel is simply unaware that Kissinger has that accent?
Kissenger's accent in Watchmen was indeed spot on (the real Kissenger is German, as is his Watchmen counterpart)
I really don't know why she thought the accent was Russian, maybe she's mostly deaf along with being mostly stupid?
Oh man, so called it.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by aeolusdallas: I don't understand the criticism of the soundtrack. I for one thought it was brilliant.
It felt like a video for the music, not music for the film most of the times.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: Um...how loudly were you singing along to 99 Luftballoons?
Well, I was quieter than the woman asking "What is that, Russian?" Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Compared with all the other comments about her review in this thread?
....
I had not read her "articles" when I posted that...
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk:
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: Um...how loudly were you singing along to 99 Luftballoons?
Well, I was quieter than the woman asking "What is that, Russian?"
:: laugh ::
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I saw it yesterday.
While I agree that Debbie Whassername's comments read like sheer hysteria, someone a couple of rows behind us brought a girl who couldn't have been more than eight to the movie, and I wanted to throttle them.
This is an 'R' movie. Not "When Harry Met Sally" R. More like a "Pulp Fiction" R. Probably more graphic, in fact.
I didn't find the sex scene especially over-the-top; that's just kind of what it looks like when people have sex. Not every sex-scene has to be "passionate-kiss-fade-out-conveniently-placed-bedsheet", nor should it be. Similarly, the amount of amazement some reviewers seem to put on the idea that a naked man be amatomically correct seems a little silly to me.
The violence, on the other hand, did annoy me. Yes, the original work has more than it's share of violence, but it can often be more effective to cut away rather than show the bloodletting. And some of the movements away from the original were to the worse. (mild SPOILER) by the time Rorschach electrocutes the second henchman in his cell, it's kind of gilding the lilly; I liked the scene better as a testament to Rorschach's sheer guile than his capacity for violence.
Where the original shines through, it's strongest. I thought the opening credits were well done, and generally liked all the casting; I was particularly impressed that they found someone for Night Owl who was both convincingly nebbish and a believable superhero.
Where we're reminded that this was "a movie by that guy who did 300", it's at it's weakest. While you have the SFX technology to make people explode it balls of plasma and viscera, the most powerful man in the world ought to be able to simply disintegrate people. While I do like some of the music, the "and now we're going to listen to this song!" segments are jarring. And the temptation to get cute (look, it's a Rorschach blot! Look, it's a smiley face!) should have been culled.
Remember kids, when you're a superhero, glass tables are never a good decorating choice.
Overall, I enjoyed it. It's worth seeing, and it's probably about as faithful to the comic as you can reasonably expect a movie to be.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
At least it was waaaaaaay better than the last 2 Harry Potter movies. Way better in my opinion. I dug it.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I found the song selections quite jarring in places, but looking at my copy of the graphic novel, I noticed that some of the ones I found jarring were actually used in the graphic novel. For instance, All Along the Watchtower shows up in the same chapter of both the graphic novel and the movie.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:I found the song selections quite jarring in places...
Yeah, when All Along the Watchtower, 99 Luftballons and Sound of Silence blared away at 300 decibels, I almost shot out of my chair.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I think this movie is going to have a pretty large cultural impact - since far more people will see it than read the GN.
Yesterday morning at church I was trying to describe it to my friend Ken, who's never read the book.
He said "yeah, I really want to see it? How was it?" "Amazing." "Was it as good as Dark Knight then?" "I don't really think you can compare the two. It's more a philosophical work than a superhero movie" "but it's about superheroes, right?" "kind of... more about how the idea of super heroes and vigilantism and how it relates to our culture." I went on to describe what I liked about the movie, great visuals, said the best acting was from the guy who played Rorschach, IMO. He shot me a puzzled look, so I said Rorschach was one of the central characters. "so is he kind of a Dumbledore or Gandalf figure to the other superheroes?" "yeah... I guess."
Needless to say he's going to be in for a big surprise when he goes and sees it with me this weekend. Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
I would never label Dark Knight as a typical super hero movie. It's just as philisophical.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: I went on to describe what I liked about the movie, great visuals, said the best acting was from the guy who played Rorschach, IMO. He shot me a puzzled look, so I said Rorschach was one of the central characters. "so is he kind of a Dumbledore or Gandalf figure to the other superheroes?" "yeah... I guess."
More like Gollum, maybe...
I don't think there really is a Dumbledore or Gandalf figure in Watchmen.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: I would never label Dark Knight as a typical super hero movie. It's just as philisophical.
Really? I agree there's quite a bit of philosophy mixed in, but there is in any superhero movie I've seen. At the core, though, Dark Knight seemed to be a pretty standard (though quite excellent) superhero movie - incredibly rich guy with lots of martial arts skills travels around a city in his batmobile beating up ne'er do wells and so forth. A main villain shows up and he and the superhero have a series of battles, ending with the hero winning and proving himself morally superior in the process.
Not that it's a bad thing. I just fail to see how Dark Knight isn't just another superhero movie. There's absolutely nothing morally ambiguous about it - Batman is Good, the Joker is Evil, and the movie shows how good people ought to deal with evil.
Watchmen goes to an entirely new, and much deeper level altogether.
Again, not trying to dis your opinions or anything... I just can't see where you consider them to be equal films philosophically?
Posted by mojammer (Member # 4416) on :
I started to read the graphic novel, but didn't finish.
I agree that the movie was pretty gratuitous, and I don't know if the sex was in the graphic novel, but I'm assuming it's a directorial choice to make so.
The story, the ideas, were interesting, and the graphics were excellent, thought in a movie that long it was the story that held my interest to the end. What really bothered me was that the characters weren't very developed. Rorschach was the only one that I really cared about, or empathized with. The others weren't developed enough, which kept me a little disengaged.
Overall I enjoyed it, but wouldn't recommend it.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
quote:Originally posted by Godric 2.0: More like Gollum, maybe...
I don't think there really is a Dumbledore or Gandalf figure in Watchmen.
Well, there's Dr. Manhattan. Wise, all-powerful, eventually steps out of the spotlight so the hero he's been mentoring can do his thing. Very much the Gandalf/Dumbledore archtype.
. . .if you ignore the fact that the "hero" has to manipulate him off the stage, has questionable tactics, and will not, in the long run, be able to save the world, anyway.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Saw it Saturday, read the graphic novel Sunday. Both were good for their own reasons, and I think they complement each other well.
I thought the characters were basically as developed as they needed to be. Rorschach is the easiest to "like" (which is odd because he's the most unlikeable) but I also thought they did an excellent job with Dr. Manhattan (Doc was one of the things that I think the movie did far better justice to than the book could hope too. It's hard to see how otherworldly he is when he's drawn pretty much the same as everyone else).
I lot of my friends didn't like Manhattan because of his callous nature. That was my favorite part about him.
I didn't have an issue with the music, but I can see why some people would.
I'd also have to say this is way more philosophical than Dark Knight. I never really got why that movie was treated as so lofty. It was well done but straight forward.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:I agree that the movie was pretty gratuitous, and I don't know if the sex was in the graphic novel, but I'm assuming it's a directorial choice to make so.
Pretty much scene for scene, it was there. And it was just as drawn out in the comic, for that matter.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
But not nearly as graphic. The movie had the same scenes but a great, great deal more nudity.
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If I had known that it was basically violent porn, I would not have gone to see it.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: If I had known that it was basically violent porn, I would not have gone to see it.
*Goes to buy ticket* Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*shrugs* Porn is a big business. I'm not surprised lots of people are eager for it.
It would have been a better movie without it.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
I was kidding btw. It's actually the reason I haven't seen it. I would much rather have it be PG-13.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Actually, they featured Dr. Manhattan clothed more often than they did in the comic, as I recall.
All that is erotic is not porn.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Sex and nudity are natural. It's the violence that bothered me more. It had me shutting my eyes in those parts.
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: All that is erotic is not porn.
QFT
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I have to admit, naked Dr. Manhattan was so nonchalant about it, it never bothered me. The important bits were usually below the bottom of the shot, and it was never gratuitous when it was in the frame. It was just there.
Frankly, him in his little speedo was more distracting to me. But I did love seeing him in a suit.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
I can understand people's reactions to the violence, but I still don't see what was so explicit or "pornographic" about the sex. Are we just talking about the one scene on the Owl ship? If so, it was like only 3 minutes long and there was barely a nipple shown. Or have I subconsciously censored it in my mind or something? I really don't remember it being as intense as other people describe it. Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I'm not sure what I thought of gratuitous-ness. I think, to some degree, the violence was necessary to convey the magnitude of what being a super hero is really about. The sex scenes with Manhattan were definitely necessary to showcase how divorced he is from one of the most basic human drives.
The fact that he walks around without clothes is important for the same reason. There was more visible penis in the movie than the comic book, but most of the time in the book it's only obscured with a strategically placed word-balloon. I'm an artist and I have to look at naked people with some frequency, so this wasn't really a big deal to me, and honestly it's sad that it was a big deal for most people.
The sex scene in the blimp-thingy? Eh, not really essential to the story, but I don't think it's inherently wrong either, it's just a matter of which audience you'd rather attract. I think this film would have had a shot at being considered a "serious movie" by "serious movie reviewers" if it had toned down some parts, and probably won't now, but I don't think it's a worse film.
Regarding the 300-ness: When I first watched the movie, I thought "eh, it's 300-like except slightly better." Later on I realized that the slow-mo is used for a slightly nobler purpose here - it allows fights to happen in "frames," so the action more closely parallels that in the book. It doesn't make the movie better to someone who didn't read the book but it was a neat thing to realize.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think you subconciously censored it in your brain. Your description doesn't even match what I couldn't avoid watching before covering my eyes.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Dood, it was just butts and stuff. Some folks in the US make too much of a big deal out of sex and bodies...
Plus in the GN and in this movie it's interesting because Nite Owl II felt all weak and useless, and Laurie wasn't too happy either so saving all of those people ignited their passion and made them feel more alive.
But the fire spurting out was kind of over the top.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
There IS full nudity, but it's from the side and in silhouette, which felt less intense to me. I can see how his and your perception of the scene could be "correct" because you flagged the silhouette as a bigger deal than he did.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:The sex scene in the blimp-thingy? Eh, not really essential to the story...
It was rather important to the development of both characters involved though. And, honestly, I don't think a quick cut-away would have done justice to it.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: But the fire spurting out was kind of over the top.
I agree, but that's literally straight out of a panel in the graphic novel. I've actually got the graphic novel right here -- Chapter 7, page 27, bottom panel.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Yeah, I've never really figured out what the intent was behind that. It made me chuckle the first time I read the novel though.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: But the fire spurting out was kind of over the top.
I agree, but that's literally straight out of a panel in the graphic novel. I've actually got the graphic novel right here -- Chapter 7, page 27, bottom panel.
I forgot about that.. It's funnier to see it on screen. I can't even wait to reread Watchmen.
WHy do I not own a copy of it? And a really elaborate Rorschach figure because I like him for some reason though he is anti-social.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I think you subconciously censored it in your brain. Your description doesn't even match what I couldn't avoid watching before covering my eyes.
If you covered your eyes I think it's far more likely that you're subconsciously exaggerating it. I know there was some nipple, but I'm certain that there was no genitalia, no penetration shown, and the whole thing couldn't have been more than 2-3 minutes out of a nearly 3 hour film. That's why I don't understand the claims of Watchmen being violent porn. If I can watch a sex scene with a family member sitting right beside me (my brother, in this case) and not feel uncomfortable then it wasn't that bad.
As for the scene's relevance to the plot, it serves the same purpose in the film as it does in the book. The story is about getting inside the heads of people who are actually nuts enough to put on a costume and go out and beat up criminals. One aspect of that which is brought up in both the book and film is that some people get off on it. There's meant to be a contrast between the love making on the ship and the earlier failed attempt on the couch. It's says something about how much of Dan's mojo comes from wearing the costume.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Totally random comment: I feel ashamed at how long it took me to realize that Rorschach, the guy with the white and black mask, saw the world in black and white.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
yes! Hench why he likes his mask. It's black and white with no shades of gray in between!
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Although that's counteracted by the fact that the meaning of a Rorschach blot is deliberately vague. But I think the point of that was more along the lines of "this whole world is crazy, and this mask is going to remind criminals of that as I'm beating the crap out of them."
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
It's not just the black and white that makes his mask symbolic -- it's the fact that one uses a Rorschach ink blot to "read" other people's mental states -- in other words, what someone sees in the blot tells you who they are as a person. Wearing it meant that anyone looking at Rorschach was interpreting him through their own subjective viewpoint; even we (as readers and viewers) do this. There's no one "reason" Rorschach is the way he is, or does the things he does, but we interpret him as if there is. I think there's even a part in the graphic novel where he talks about subjectivity...*goes to look*
edit: i was membering this, Chapter 6, page 26: "The cold, suffocating dark goes on forever, and we are alone. Live our lives, lacking anything better to do. Devise reason later. Born from oblivion; bear children, hell-bound as ourselves; go into oblivion. There is nothing else. Existence is random. Has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long. No meaning save what we choose to impose."
(bolding mine)
The point is we understand whatever we want to about the world; we read into it what we determine, not what is already there. The Rorschach ink blot is just an example of this kind of mindless, meaningless interpretation.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: Wearing it meant that anyone looking at Rorschach was interpreting him through their own subjective viewpoint; even we (as readers and viewers) do this. There's no one "reason" Rorschach is the way he is, or does the things he does, but we interpret him as if there is.
"I see .. a butterfly!"
"I see .. a parody of Objectivism!"
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Lol
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I am perfectly aware of the intent of the scene and the supposed purpose of all the gratuitous violence and rampant, live nudity. I also know that it could have and should have been done without coming across like a midnight movie in the red light district in a theatre with sticky floors.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
In all fairness to the movie, kat, what you're describing is not analogous to what the scene actually showed.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I am perfectly aware of the intent of the scene and the supposed purpose of all the gratuitous violence and rampant, live nudity. I also know that it could have and should have been done without coming across like a midnight movie in the red light district in a theatre with sticky floors.
While I agree that the violence was overdone, there were IIRC four sex scenes in the movie, including the rape one. The rest of the nudity came from a naked blue guy. I doubt that that'll arouse a lot of people. :shrug:
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Well, there's Dr. Manhattan. Wise, all-powerful, eventually steps out of the spotlight so the hero he's been mentoring can do his thing. Very much the Gandalf/Dumbledore archtype.
If Gandalf or Dumbledore were able to simply point at people and vaporize them, the respective series of books would have been significantly shorter, I imagine.
quote:While I agree that the violence was overdone, there were IIRC four sex scenes in the movie, including the rape one.
All the other sex scenes pale in comparison to the "one"; in one you barely see anything and in the second they barely get their clothes off.
As I recall, the clothes didn't even come off in the rape scene, did they? He only got as far as undoing his belt.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I am perfectly aware of the intent of the scene and the supposed purpose of all the gratuitous violence and rampant, live nudity. I also know that it could have and should have been done without coming across like a midnight movie in the red light district in a theatre with sticky floors.
That's pretty hyperbolic.
I wouldn't have preferred to see a PG-13 version of the film.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I would have, greatly. I wish it was an option. Heck, an R without 15% of the screen time involving full frontal nudity and less of the graphic bone-crunching Saw-type violence would have been marvelous. That's what I thought it was going to be.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Achilles:
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: All that is erotic is not porn.
QFT
If you don't mind, could one of you expand upon and explain this? Assume that there's someone in the room that not only doesn't believe this, but is surprised that anybody could honestly make that claim.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
For instance, the vast majority of erotic imagery in art museums around the country (edit: and around the world).
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I would have, greatly. I wish it was an option. Heck, an R without 15% of the screen time involving full frontal nudity and less of the graphic bone-crunching Saw-type violence would have been marvelous. That's what I thought it was going to be.
This is still hyperbolic. Nowhere near 15% of the screen time contained any nudity. There were the scenes with Dr. Manhattan in 1985, which were the most frequent, one sex scene, one shot of a pornographic drawing, and one sidewalk scene with Rorschach where he's propositioned by a prostitute.
Anyway. I get that you're not comfortable with that level of violence, which I certainly agree was quite graphic, or with that level of nudity. That's fine, it's just a difference in taste and sensibilities.
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by Achilles:
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: All that is erotic is not porn.
QFT
If you don't mind, could one of you expand upon and explain this? Assume that there's someone in the room that not only doesn't believe this, but is surprised that anybody could honestly make that claim.
First, things can be erotic without nudity. Heck, I've seen video footage of snails copulating that actually struck me as surprisingly sensuous. That isn't porn, that's a nature documentary.
Beyond that it depends on your definition of "porn."
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Raja -- do you agree that "all that is erotic is not porn", or just "not all that is erotic is porn".
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: For instance, the vast majority of erotic imagery in art museums around the country (edit: and around the world).
What, in your mind, is the difference between erotic imagery and porn, besides where you find it?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Oh, I misread that. I'm not sure which was meant. I fall in the latter camp.
Kat, I re-read my post above, and it parses more confrontationally than I mean it, even with my disclaimer. I'm really not trying to dispute your opinion. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Raja -- I assume that the latter is what was originally meant, but the fact that it was QFT without comment does make me wonder.
Nevertheless, it's probably more fruitful for this discussion to just assume the latter.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
I found the graphic violence far more disturbing than the sex scenes, but then I tend to think that American culture is bizarrely squeamish about sex anyway.
While a valid (albeit incorrect IMO) case could be made that the type of violence in the movie is a bastardization of the original graphic novel's vision, removing the sex scenes (or showing them in sanitized form) would have been a huge betrayal of the source material. Two of the explicit goals of the book were showing (a) that the types of people likely to dress up in costume to fight crime probably get off on the fetishism of it as well and (b) that the sexual sanitization of superheroes is ridiculous. Moore's point is that blithely showing Superman punch people through walls while censoring the slightest bit of physical affection between himself and Lois Lane displays a frighteningly messed up sense of what is and isn't acceptable.
There are boobs in the graphic novel. There is blue penis in the graphic novel. The level of sexuality depicted in the graphic novel was, if anything, more shocking in 1985 than the nudity on display in the film is in 2009. A PG-13 rated "Watchmen" movie would be, at best, a soulless recreation of the book's plot points.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Ah, I see the confusion. I predict Sterling meant something equivalent to the latter (and you can parse his statement to be equivalent -- the more common parsing would be that everything classified as erotic is not classified as porn, but you could also read it as a holistic statement about "all that is erotic", saying that set is not equivalent to the set of porn, even if they overlap).
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I also think Dr. Manhattan is in part a repudiation of the Hulk's Incredible Elastic Pants(tm).
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Where I find it is not a very important difference to me (though context is important); however, most art museums shy away from porn but embrace erotic paintings (that are also famous).
I don't think there's a clear dividing line, but that's true of many things. To some extent, I mirror the Supreme Court's attitude.
I would say that, generally, pornography is something created for the spectacle, intended to not just titillate but to be an object for the pursuit of sexual gratification. Erotic imagery tends to both be more artistic, and is generally not intended (and not used) for sexual gratification, even if it arouses. I think there are exceptions on both sides, though.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
To me, the distinction is that pornography invites you to imagine yourself a participant.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk:
quote:While I agree that the violence was overdone, there were IIRC four sex scenes in the movie, including the rape one.
All the other sex scenes pale in comparison to the "one"; in one you barely see anything and in the second they barely get their clothes off.
As I recall, the clothes didn't even come off in the rape scene, did they? He only got as far as undoing his belt.
Yeah, I defined "sex scenes" very loosely here. The rape scene wasn't even one per se, it was an attempted rape. The scene had more violence than sex, and showing it definitely served a purpose, it wasn't gratuitous. Although of course it was meant to be disturbing.
Posted by Abyss (Member # 3086) on :
quote:As for the scene's relevance to the plot, it serves the same purpose in the film as it does in the book.
Except that in the graphic novel it does go from passionate kiss to them naked after the fact. They could have gotten away with more in the comic. But they didn't, because that would have been tacky.
It's still tacky.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Ah, I see the confusion. I predict Sterling meant something equivalent to the latter (and you can parse his statement to be equivalent -- the more common parsing would be that everything classified as erotic is not classified as porn, but you could also read it as a holistic statement about "all that is erotic", saying that set is not equivalent to the set of porn, even if they overlap).
Yes. As in "all that glitters is not gold."
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Kat, what difference do you see between the shots of a nude Doctor Manhattan and the statues of male nudes that you must inevitably have been exposed of while studing Classics?
I'm not trying to claim the the depictions of Doctor Manhattan in the nude are art of the same level as that of the sculptures I'm referring to, but I would say that in neither case is the nudity intended to be erotic*. In fact, in the case of Doctor Manhattan, you could argue that the complete lack of eroticism in his nudity is the point of it.
*Of course, explicitly, intentionally erotic sculpture did exist in the Classical world. That's not what I'm talking about, though. I'm talking about things like the Artemesian Zeus, Myron's Discobolus, myriad kouroi, the Apollo Belvedere, and that sort of thing.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
I think Dark Knight has just as many ideas to chew on as Watchmen. Some arent played off of as much, but its easily deeper than any other super hero movie not Watchmen.
There was some moral ambigiuty(the people shooting at Resse,and the fact that Gordon stopped his strike plan to get Joker to evacuate hospitals and save Reese, etc) . And Batman winning suggests that Bruce was right, and Raz was wrong. (alluding to Batman Begins) I actually prefer Begins to DK, but DK was definitly deeper.
[ March 10, 2009, 08:10 PM: Message edited by: umberhulk ]
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I think people may be putting words in Kat's mouth. (Or rather, Kat's words were a bit hyperbolic and its unfair to take them literally). I don't recall her mentioning Doc Manhattan at all. I assumed she just had different views on what makes a good and/or pornographic sex scene, and it's not like that's something you can argue.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
I think if one were to compare the scene in question to one from, say, your average soft-core porn sex scene, the differences would be obvious.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I think people may be putting words in Kat's mouth. (Or rather, Kat's words were a bit hyperbolic and its unfair to take them literally). I don't recall her mentioning Doc Manhattan at all. I assumed she just had different views on what makes a good and/or pornographic sex scene, and it's not like that's something you can argue.
I can't vouch for other people, but if by "people" you mean me, I can say that no, I'm certainly not. Note that I asked her for clarification on what differences she sees between the only instances of full frontal nudity, which she directly complains about, and other depictions of full frontal nudity in art that are similarly non-erotic.
It's pretty clear that she's talking about Doctor Manhattan when she complains about full frontal nudity in the movie, because he is the only character who is shown from the front fully nude in the movie.
[Edited for better wording]
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by Achilles:
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: All that is erotic is not porn.
QFT
If you don't mind, could one of you expand upon and explain this? Assume that there's someone in the room that not only doesn't believe this, but is surprised that anybody could honestly make that claim.
Come on people, let's not get hyper literal. The statement in question was meant to be a play on "all that glitters is not gold", which does not mean that if something glitters it can't be gold, but rather that not everything that glitters is gold. Thus, not everything erotic is porn, and that statement really shouldn't need defending.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Don't tell me you only find porn erotic, Mr. Potato Head, that would be very sad.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by Leonide: I think if one were to compare the scene in question to one from, say, your average soft-core porn sex scene, the differences would be obvious.
Yeah... Instead of doing it inside a flamethrowing hovercraft, they'd be doing it in a gymnasium or in a kitchen.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
OK, I know you've all moved on, but I just read Schlussel's review.
quote:At the same time, the Soviets are about to nuke America. It's 1985 and Nixon is President. We've won in Vietnam. Oh, and Henry Kissinger has a Russian accent. And Ronald Reagan is thinking of running for President in 1988. Wow, isn't that cool that they got it wrong on purpose? I'm so amazed at this "high-brow art" of deliberately getting dates and timelines wrong, you know, just to be "artistic," and get the drooling of the critics. That is sooooo genius. Like way totally cool.
Maybe if I make a movie about how Eisenhower was President in 1972, we "lost" World War II, and Bin Laden was gonna bomb the World Trade Center then, I'll be cool, too. . . so long as it's "dark" and I include a bunch of rape, torture, explicit sex scenes, and extremely graphic killings, and oh, write a "graphic novel" a/k/a comic book about it, first.
Please, no one ever let this woman review the Ender's Game movie.
quote:Oh, they think they're SOOOO clever, with their "Formic invasion" and the "molecular disruption device." I just bet they all just LOVE talking about how awesome they are because they thought of training military commanders in an orbiting "school." Maybe if I wrote a movie where we "land" on Mars, and make that planet more "Earth-like", then I will be the great author, just as long as I make sure the movie is about how cool it is to murder children!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Thus, not everything erotic is porn, and that statement really shouldn't need defending.
That is exactly the statement that I was requesting an explanation for. While it may not need any defending, since it hasn't been attacked by anybody, it certainly does need explaining for full understanding.
The issue about what exactly the phrase meant was just a side issue that came up after my initial request.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: OK, I know you've all moved on, but I just read Schlussel's review.
quote:At the same time, the Soviets are about to nuke America. It's 1985 and Nixon is President. We've won in Vietnam. Oh, and Henry Kissinger has a Russian accent. And Ronald Reagan is thinking of running for President in 1988. Wow, isn't that cool that they got it wrong on purpose? I'm so amazed at this "high-brow art" of deliberately getting dates and timelines wrong, you know, just to be "artistic," and get the drooling of the critics. That is sooooo genius. Like way totally cool.
Maybe if I make a movie about how Eisenhower was President in 1972, we "lost" World War II, and Bin Laden was gonna bomb the World Trade Center then, I'll be cool, too. . . so long as it's "dark" and I include a bunch of rape, torture, explicit sex scenes, and extremely graphic killings, and oh, write a "graphic novel" a/k/a comic book about it, first.
Please, no one ever let this woman review the Ender's Game movie.
quote:Oh, they think they're SOOOO clever, with their "Formic invasion" and the "molecular disruption device." I just bet they all just LOVE talking about how awesome they are because they thought of training military commanders in an orbiting "school." Maybe if I wrote a movie where we "land" on Mars, and make that planet more "Earth-like", then I will be the great author, just as long as I make sure the movie is about how cool it is to murder children!
Or Homecoming, if there ever is a movie.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Thus, not everything erotic is porn, and that statement really shouldn't need defending.
That is exactly the statement that I was requesting an explanation for. While it may not need any defending, since it hasn't been attacked by anybody, it certainly does need explaining for full understanding.
The issue about what exactly the phrase meant was just a side issue that came up after my initial request.
I don't even understand why it needs explaining, to tell the truth. I've simply always understood "Erotic" and "pornographic" to mean different things. A dictionary can probably explain that difference better than I can, if an explanation really is wanted.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I figured out out!
You see, the problem here is that I've been repeatedly misreading "erotic" as "erotica".
If I had realized that the word "erotica" wasn't being used, I never would have said anything.
[END OF LINE]
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote:Yeah... Instead of doing it inside a flamethrowing hovercraft, they'd be doing it in a gymnasium or in a kitchen.
I think someone sitting down to watch the Watchman scene with hopes that it will deliver the same as a soft core porn would be severely disappointed.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Someone sitting down in hopes it would deliver the same level of violence as The Dark Knight was also very disappointed.
Noemon: Context, expectations, and, well, the difference between static and live. And, for me, being in English.
[ March 11, 2009, 07:15 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Someone sitting down in hopes it would deliver the same level of violence as The Dark Knight was also very disappointed.
Don't the two movies have different ratings?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I thought they did. What was the superhero movie people were all excited about because it was the highest-grossing rated-R movie?
I tell you what, though, if Watchmen was a sample, I'm going back to the No-Rated-R movies stance. The good movies I'll miss aren't worth taking the chance they'll be like Watchmen, if that's the new standard for a R rating.
I mean, the movie has the same rating as The Matrix. That's crazy.
ETA: Oh, 300. Which I liked. Even keeping it to the (fantasy) violence and nudity levels of 300 would have been okay.
[ March 11, 2009, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
I've seen "Burn after Reading", "Body of Lies", "Appaloosa", "In Bruges", "Revolutionary Road" and probably many other R rated movies lately, and none of them had the extreme violence that was in "Watchmen". I doubt that it'll become the standard anytime soon. Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Why is 300 considered fantasy violence? Because they were on CGI sets?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Here, The Dark Knight was 14A whereas Watchmen was 18A -- the same rating as the movies in the Saw franchise.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Because they were on CGI sets?
*puzzled* What? Why would that do it?
Fantasy setting, fantasy staging (choreography), fantasy fighting (swords don't do that) vs. miter saw in a modern prison.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
I'm interested in the idea that something about the fantasy "nature" of the movie makes the violence okay, or somehow more acceptable, because it's fantastical. IIRC, 300 wasn't beyond believability, it just stretched it a bit and implied powers/forces beyong your normal mortal person's. By that logic, Watchmen is fantasy as well -- a man exploded into his consituent atoms reactualizes himself, etc...but also the fighting. No one as slight as Malin Akerman could kick a man's leg into bending the other way, or anyone as "out of shape" as Nite Owl/Patrick Wilson could inflict the level of damage he does. Do realistic elements in an alternate universe make it non-fantasy? I mean, Sparta really existed, right? Actually, Watchmen is more fantastical than 300 because it's not "incredibly, painfully Loosely based on actual events".
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Noemon: Context, expectations, and, well, the difference between static and live. And, for me, being in English.
I can understand that.
For what it's worth, I'd say that this movie was easily the most violent I've seen in a long time, and I'd guess that most of the movies I see are rated R. The actual sex scenes were fairly tame compared to what I've often seen in movies that I'd guess were rated R, but there was certainly much more non-sexual male nudity than I've seen in most movies.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I tell you what, though, if Watchmen was a sample, I'm going back to the No-Rated-R movies stance. The good movies I'll miss aren't worth taking the chance they'll be like Watchmen, if that's the new standard for a R rating.
You could always read up on the content before seeing the R-rated movies. The level of nudity and violence in this film is pretty well-documented and there are sites out there that provide very detailed inventories of potentially objectionable content, down to the number of people that are smoking or being disrespectful to their parents.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
If I had kat's concerns, I'd be reluctant to go that route because I'd be concerned about spoilers. What would probably be ideal would be a friend who knew my tastes well, and who would be willing to vet R rated movies for me.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: If I had kat's concerns, I'd be reluctant to go that route because I'd be concerned about spoilers. What would probably be ideal would be a friend who knew my tastes well, and who would be willing to vet R rated movies for me.
The one site that I used to frequently refer to for screening out inappropriate stuff for my kids, screenit.com, was pretty good at breaking things down separate from the plot summary so you could get a good sense of the content without actually getting many spoilers.
We don't watch as many movies with the kids these days, so I'm not up on what's currently available. I think screenit.com went to a subscription model.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Interesting. I'd never used a service like that, but was assuming that they probably summarized the plots in the course of their analysis. Sounds like something like that would be useful for a person with kat's concerns.
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I figured out out!
You see, the problem here is that I've been repeatedly misreading "erotic" as "erotica".
If I had realized that the word "erotica" wasn't being used, I never would have said anything.
[END OF LINE]
I Missed it. Sorry Porter, you seemed to have worked it out.
My anecdote is this:
Long ago I went to a comic convention. At the time I was in my twenties and enjoyed Heavy Metal and underground comics. There is an artist by the name of Guido Crepax who produces wonderful erotic art, gorgeous fantasy black and white art, fabulously executed. I saw a rare portfolio of his work at a stand, and approached the vendor to purchase it.
He eyed me suspiciously, asking for ID. Whatever, I produced it. He asked me if I was familiar with the work, and I said yes, I considered it great art. He narrowed his eyes and, reluctantly, sold it to me, claiming it was porn.
I don't see erotic art as porn. My wife is surprised at such reactions when others comment to her about some of my artistic tastes. She says that she knows I'm just looking at the technique and composition, not to get aroused by it.
Many artists have made erotic art in a purely aesthetic fashion. The subject can be beautiful. Sometimes the subject is ugly. There are many shades between. This is one reason why it is so difficult to define what porn is, and what it is not.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Achilles: I don't see erotic art as porn. My wife is surprised at such reactions when others comment to her about some of my artistic tastes. She says that she knows I'm just looking at the technique and composition, not to get aroused by it.
Many artists have made erotic art in a purely aesthetic fashion. The subject can be beautiful. Sometimes the subject is ugly. There are many shades between. This is one reason why it is so difficult to define what porn is, and what it is not.
I agree with all of this. I just have one comment:
quote:She says that she knows I'm just looking at the technique and composition, not to get aroused by it.
My take on this in the general case (i.e. the royal "you") is: even if you were, so what? As long as the partner is aware and doesn't mind then it's no big deal. What's even better is if the partner shares the interest, because then you can talk about what you do and don't like, and why.
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
Oh, I'm not saying I don't get aroused by it sometimes.
And she gets aroused by it more often than I. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I mean, the movie has the same rating as The Matrix. That's crazy.
I agree with you on that point. I can't think of a single reason why the Matrix shouldn't be rated PG-13. Our rating system makes more sense. Watchmen is rated 18A while The Matrix was 14A, I believe.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
It occurred to me today that I think I'd rather Watchmen have been filmed as a 12 part miniseries. I think it would be particularly neat if it had been filmed in such a way that on the DVD, you could do a sort of "build it yourself Watchmen."
Want the NC-17, full length 12 hour version complete with some random artsy take on the Black Freighter segments and documentary footage referencing the biography? Knock yourself out. (I don't know if you could film the Black Freighter segments the same way they were presented in the book, but I think
Want to see the more "typical rated R version?" Watch the version with the appropriate pieces clipped out.
Want to show the "PG-13 version" to your kids? Watch the version where Manhattan decides he has a little modesty left over and wheres the black shorts the whole time.
Want to see the blockbuster awesomeness section where they cut all the documentary and artsy-frieghter footage, leaving approximately the 2.5 hours we saw in theaters? You could do that to. (That version would probably also be released in theaters, to help recoup the cost of making such a lengthy production)
Not sure whether that would be economically viable, but it would've been cool.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
In a way, they've done that. They're releasing a "Black Freighter" dvd and a "motion comic" version of the original graphic novel (haven't seen it but it seems like the took the original comic added sounded and some motion to create a super long movie).
They just haven't edited it all together. But it seems like they've taken some extra steps to really please the fanboys. Atleast its more of an attempt than I've seen done with any other adaptation. And I'm sure the final dvd release of the movie will have a ton of extras.
Heck maybe they could throw in some "video editing made easy" software on a bonus disc. Then everyone could personalize the movie. I'd add in some Black Freighter, keep Dr. Manhattan's junk, remove the extra shots of Dan's booty, cut back on the gore, and use the "alternate/original" ending.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Oh. That's neat.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
I love the concept of the "Build Your Own Movie." In fact, I'm hoping some indie company releases something like this eventually -- although it might only work with something, like Watchmen, that has a presence outside of the film realm so viewers can access that (the novel, graphic novel, etc.) and decide for themselves what goes into the movie. Ooh, something like House of Leaves, maybe!
Of course, I think the vast majority of patrons would prefer the normal, pre-packaged cinematic epxerience Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
I don't even know what to say about this open letter from one of the Watchmen screenwriters. Other than, well, ick.
Because telling your audience that watching your movie is like being raped is a great marketing tool. Yeah.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
I agree with a lot of what he said, but, yeah, the rape analogy really squicked me out. You're not supposed to celebrate the fact that Sally "went back," you're just supposed to vaguely understand it in a kind of dark way.
I'll be seeing the movie again this week, though not because this writer told me to Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I'd see it if he gave me the money for the movie matinee and some sushi. Like 20 bucks worth of the stuff because I love sushi and I can't ever get enough of it.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Free sushi in exchange for seeing movies: the wave of the future!
Posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged (Member # 7476) on :
IMHO if they really wanted to do Watchmen right it should have been a 12 part HBO mini series.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
Exclusive: leaked dialogue from the extended director's cut!
GRAPHIC NOVEL SPOILERS
(Occurs right after Veidt describes his plan)
Dan: "Tell us, Adrian, what would you have done if you couldn't simulate Jon's power and have him take the blame?"
Veidt: "Well, I did have a back up plan..."
Dan: "Oh?"
Veidt: "Of course. I created a giant bio-engineered squid like monster possessing the cloned brain of a human psychic. I would have used it to fake an alien invasion."
Dan and Rorschach: (stare in disbelief)
Veidt: "Really! It's actually still down in my basement. I haven't got a clue what I'm going to do with it now... Want to see it? It enjoys having its tentacles tickled."
Dan and Rorschach: (continue to stare)
Veidt: (looks embarrassed) "Yeah... I'm glad I didn't have to resort to something that Bizarre.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
That was beautiful, man.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I just saw this. I will include spoilers below. (BTW...If you've read this thread and are still reading despite a desire not to be spoiled, you're craaay zee.)
Unlike (I gather) most of the people posting on this thread, I'm a Watchmen neophyte. I did read a lot of the spoilers in this thread before I went to see it, but that was like a month ago so I had forgotten most of them (I did remember there was supposed to be a blue penis - who could forget that?).
From someone who had few expectations, I thought the movie was pretty poorly done. Some impressions:
-Jeez, Dr. Manhattan's nudity was not a big deal. Do you want a character who is detached from petty human concerns or not? He was cartoony enough that it wasn't even distracting.
-Yes, the Archie sex scene was longer than it needed to be. (I wasn't complaining, but I can see why some people would.)
-The level of violence and sex and nudity is VERY similar to 300. Not sure why anyone would be OK with 300 and object to the content of this film. It's almost a 1:1 for rape and sex scenes (seriously), and both have gore end to end. I guess the color palette and implements of violence are sometimes more realistic in the Watchmen, but that's a minor difference.
-The hand to hand combat, I think, hurt the movie. If we're supposed to get an idea what it would be like if a bunch of ordinary humans decided to be vigilantes and went around in costumes perpetrating justice, don't give them superhuman kung fu. Same with Ozy catching a bullet in his hand. Please. If this is inherited from the graphic novel, then the movie gets a pass, I guess.
-On the other hand, if we let Dr. Manhattan's origin slide, then his portrayal is great. Why would he adopt a deep voice? Wouldn't care. If he's going to kill someone, why not make it like their arteries were high explosive? Works for him. Maybe he gets some minor entertainment from the blood scatter. Wasn't sure why he went with the super muscling, but for his own entertainment is a good enough reason, I think. (Perhaps he cannot alter the fundamentals of his own body image but *can* adopt an idealized version? That might fit with the demonstrated limits of his self-insight.)
-The soundtrack was incredibly jarring. The funeral scene almost made me laugh.
-Rorschach's mask was distracting, because it made no sense. It was supernatural when it shouldn't have been. If this is a bit of symbolic license, I think it'd have been better executed as a changing pattern that is still when observed. (ETA:But then, I guess he wasn't named "Heisenberg".)
-The acting was generally bad. Ozy seemed to slide in and out of some accent. Malin Ackerman can't seem to display emotion. Nite Owl 2 dude was stiff. Rorschach was OK but the artificial growl is unnecessary and distracting.
I think it still managed to provide a reasonably thoughtful treatment of comic book heroes vs. real life, and I thought I detected a lot of ways in which the visuals were inherited from the graphic novel (I haven't seen the GN, there were just a lot of times when the screen was just sort of starkly comic-like)...so I don't think it was done entirely without skill. It just could have been a lot better, IMO.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Read the GN....
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Read the GN....
Yeah. It's worth a read, and I think a good introduction to how good a GN can be. I did after I watched the movie (per the suggestion of my friend) and was surprised how much the movie kept, and the things that were changed were improvements, IMO. Especially the giant squid alien.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I might read the GN. Will it retroactively make me like the movie more?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Maybe. It would explain stuff you were curious about without me having to answer and spoil everything. Plus it's so good.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote: -Rorschach's mask was distracting, because it made no sense. It was supernatural when it shouldn't have been.
His mask is made from materials developed by the Manhattan project. This wasn't discussed in the movie, but it's canon for the GN.
quote:-The acting was generally bad. Ozy seemed to slide in and out of some accent.
This was a deliberate choice by the director, who decided Ozy would pretend to be more American in public to fit his image, and would revert back to his natural accent around his friends (i.e., in the scene with Night Owl, where his German accent is most pronounced.)
I can see how some of these things might be frustrating to a first-time viewer. I'm becoming more and more convinced that re-watching movies is a worthwhile, even a necessary experience to fully enjoying them. Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Rorschach was OK but the artificial growl is unnecessary and distracting.
It isn't quite as evident in the movie as in the GN just how much Rorschach is a character he has created and inhabits. There's some throw-away bit in the GN when he's captured about how had lifts in his shoes to make him appear taller.
I think part of the key to Rorshach's character is he acts and looks the way he does because he thinks that's how someone who does what he does should act and look (and talk), if that makes any sense.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Sounds like the movie's problem might have been trying to be faithful to a lot of details in the GN without being able to devote the time to explain them.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Indeed. That is a problem. I just saw the movie myself, and, well, I got a lot of things that weren't explained, because I'd already read the GN.
But a lot of it might not have made sense otherwise...
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I just remembered, I loved the part where Rorschach screams: "I'm not locked in here with you. You're locked in here with me!" Great, great line.
Posted by Team 2012 (Member # 12025) on :
A really excellent film.
If there hadn't been a GN out there to compare it to, it probably wouldn't be getting all the scrutiny and nitpicking it's getting.
(Note: it's superior to the comic in many ways. One example, Manhattan's wheely platform on Mars. The beauty and wonder of that movement can't be captured in graphics)
People should probably learn to accept films as their own medium, and in terms of their intended audience. Shrek is a far better script than Pirates of the Caribbean, but few recognize that. Maybe this should be taught in school.
A great, amazing, intellectually interesting piece of work.
Posted by Team 2012 (Member # 12025) on :
That said, they obviously tossed in things to keep the comic readers happy. Walking out of the Gunga Diner at the end. No need to widen the shot and prepare the facade, but it was an Easter egg for GN readers. And why not?
But it wasn't an illustration of the comic and shouldn't have been. They did it their way and did a great job.
Anybody freaking out about Manhattan's shlong should have a long talk with their father or mother or bio teacher or something.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"If there hadn't been a GN out there to compare it to, it probably wouldn't be getting all the scrutiny and nitpicking it's getting."
On the other hand, without a large fan base acquainted with the GN, I'm not sure people would understand or appreciate the movie nearly as much.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I'm really bummed about this.![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)