"Turns out, it wasn't impossible to do Watchmen justice on-screen – it just took a long time, many different points of view, scripts drafted and deals done and dusted. Moore's 338 pages have been condensed into 150-odd minutes of the finest super-hero movie ever made, hands down. Zack Snyder is the man who accomplished it, but Alan Moore was the artisan author who made it possible. Hopefully, if Alan Moore is thinking anything at this moment, it's a small concession of thanks to a director who really did right by him – and by the fans who sat aside and waited, wanting and hoping.
If it could be said that The Dark Knight legitimised comic book films with a level of maturity and sophistication that caught cynics off-guard, then Watchmen cements comic book films of this calibre as equals among any other, irrespective of genre."
Sounds like Snyder may have pulled it off. As with any movie ymmv, but still everything seems to be pointing to something really special.
There was no Matrix two. There was "the Matrix" and there were two other movies which accidently shared most of the main cast in the same outfits. Besides that those movies are not related in any form.....
I liked it. While not prefect it was an a good attempt at adapting Watchmen to the big screen. Probably the best we could get given the liberties Hollywood takes with licensed properties.
The Graphic novel is overrated - some super big fans of it, drown out so many nonplussed (I'm nonplussed). Rorsch is a great character, if it was just hte Rorsch comic I would have loved it - the rest just so-so
sexiest_hero wrote:It's a good flick for the 80's. Worst lovemaking scene in a long time. It's ok, great if your a huge fan that can overlook some things. 6/10
You know, considering that their interaction was awkward in the book, I thought those scenes were appropriately awkward and bad.
Malin Akerman was definitely the weakest element of the group, I thought. She acted way too woodenly for Silk Spectre.
namegoeshere wrote:The Graphic novel is overrated - some super big fans of it, drown out so many nonplussed (I'm nonplussed). Rorsch is a great character, if it was just hte Rorsch comic I would have loved it - the rest just so-so
I'm still reading it but yeah, so far it's just a snobby example thrown around by the "Games/Comics/Cartoons/Animus As Art" crowd. You can tell who they are because they call it "graphic novel" instead of comic book. If I recall, Moore said in some interview that he thought that was silly too. It was a comic book.
Oh no! There's death and callousness in this comic book! It's deeper than Hemingway and Shakespeare!
Saw it yesterday. I give it a 8/10 also. I thought it was really great, but a little too long. They left out a lot of stuff from the comic that really wasn't needed and even still it took too long. And nixon's makeup just looked silly. It didn't help that there was a smelly nerd 4 seats away that was mouthing the words to every line and telling us to be quiet every time my GF made a tiny little whisper.
Overall I think they did really the best anyone else could do with a watchmen movie and it was nice that they tried to stay true to the comic as much as possible. The cast was also pretty much spot on, especially the comedian.
Necros wrote: It didn't help that there was a smelly nerd 4 seats away that was mouthing the words to every line and telling us to be quiet every time my GF made a tiny little whisper.
That's better than the two 14 year old boys who sat behind me making sarcastic comments and snickering everytime an adult situation occured. I finally had to turn around and ask them "Dude, can you STFU for five minutes?" Amazingly, they did. For the rest of the movie, even.
I didn't think the follwoing would be worth a new thread, but I thought I'll post it anyway:
Necros wrote:One guy came in the theater with 5 boys all around 10. They lasted till the jon & laurie 4 hands scene, then they all left
Interesting that you mention that. Because I just read this "review". Try to read it and then the comments below.
Later she posted this.
Some People just shouldn't be allowed on the Internet. I mean, of course she can have a different opinion about the movie, but if you read how she responded to some of the comments, I'm starting to doubt her journalistic credibility.
Guess what? We know there are bad people and that people are everyday people with problems. If you don't know that, and you think a movie like this is necessary to make the point, you're even more warped and stupid than I originally diagnosed.
And maybe your sister should be fed to dogs and your mother raped and your brother should have his arms sawed off (as they do in this snuff/torture-porn movie). You know, just to make the point.
It was a terrible adaption of the comics. Instead of adding character development the director decided to make gory "ninja" fight scenes.
If you have read the comic avoid the movie..... if you must see it bootleg it. Its not worth your hard earned money.
If you have not read the comic spend your money buying it instead of seeing this swill.
avantgarde wrote:Mediocre at best, too many needlessly tedious scenes and bad music choices.
namegoeshere wrote:The Graphic novel is overrated - some super big fans of it, drown out so many nonplussed (I'm nonplussed). Rorsch is a great character, if it was just hte Rorsch comic I would have loved it - the rest just so-so
Anung Un Rama wrote:I'm starting to doubt her journalistic credibility.
I questioned after reading the first sentence. She is a movie critic in sense that everyone on 4chan that posts on the /tv/ board is also a critic i.e. she has internet access and has figured out that pressing buttons on a keyboards creates words and sentences.
stonefox wrote:People hate what I love. They must be trolls.
Disagreeing isn't trolling, it is how you disagree. For example
reasonable poster wrote:
It just didn't do it for me. I never found the characters compelling and just felt more bored than engaged most of the time.
Now, the trolling version
Troll McPherson wrote:
It was a terrible movie and only an idiot could think otherwise.
The review below is hilarious. Never have I seen a reviewer miss the point of a film by such a wide margin.
Admittedly its from the Daily Mail who are annoying, pious, self appointed moral guardians but this is rubbish even by their standards.
The worst part is that the reviewer actually does troll in the most spectacular fashion by personally insulting people who disagree with him by liking the film. What a moron.
I didn't say the movie sucked, in fact I thought they nailed the majority of the cast except for Ozy. It's very appealing to fans, but I watched it like it was a stand alone movie instead of an adaption and was disappointed in that sense.
You might want to find out the meaning of internet buzz words like "Trolls" or "Trolling" before using them in a conversation. Not only do you look like a fool by using a word incorrectly, but by saying something like that you are in fact Trolling.
An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.
Whoah, awesomely meta. Like whoah. ITT typeline was the troll and everyone took the bait. Like the scribbled grafitti that said "Who watches the watchmen". Deep.
Dark Visions
“Watchmen” and “Leave Her to Heaven.”
by Anthony Lane
March 9, 2009 Text Size:
Small Text
Medium Text
Large Text Print E-Mail Feeds Dr. Manhattan and Rorschach in Zack Snyder’s movie.
Keywords
“Watchmen”; “Leave Her to Heaven?”; Zack Snyder; John M. Stahl; Graphic Novels; Alan Moore; Billy Crudup The world of the graphic novel is a curious one. For every masterwork, such as “Persepolis” or “Maus,” there seem to be shelves of cod mythology and rainy dystopias, patrolled by rock-jawed heroes and their melon-breasted sidekicks. Fans of the stuff are masonically loyal, prickling with a defensiveness and an ardor that not even Wagnerians can match. One lord of the genre is a glowering, hairy Englishman named Alan Moore, the coauthor of “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen” and “V for Vendetta.” Both of these have been turned into motion pictures; the first was merely an egregious waste of money, time, and talent, whereas the second was not quite as enjoyable as tripping over barbed wire and falling nose first into a nettle patch. In each case, the cry from readers was that the movie was doomed by its treacherous departure from the original; Moore distanced himself from both productions, and he has done so again with the new adaptation of “Watchmen.” The movie was written by David Hayter and Alex Tse, and directed by Zack Snyder, but nowhere do we see the name of Moore.
The bad news about “Watchmen” is that it grinds and squelches on for two and a half hours, like a major operation. The good news is that you don’t have to stay past the opening credit sequence—easily the highlight of the film. In contrast to all that follows, it tells its tale briskly, showing how a bunch of crime-fighters formed a secret club known as the Minutemen, who in turn were succeeded by the Watchmen. This entails a whisk through history from the nineteen-forties to the eighties, with shots of masked figures shaking hands with John F. Kennedy, posing with Andy Warhol, and so forth; these are staged like Annie Leibovitz setups, and, indeed, just to ram home the in-joke, we later see a Leibovitz look-alike behind a camera. But must we have “The Times They Are A-Changin’ ” in the background? How long did it take the producers to arrive at that imaginative choice? And was Dylan happy to lend his name to a project from which all tenderness has been excised, and which prefers to paint mankind as a bevy of brutes?
As far as superheroes go, two’s company but three or more is a drag, with no single character likely to secure our attention: just ask the X-Men, or the Fantastic Four, or the half-dozen Watchmen we get here. There is Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley), a slip of a psychopath, his face often obscured by a bandagelike mask, on which inky patches constantly blot and re-form. There is Dan (Patrick Wilson), better known as Nite Owl, who keeps his old superhero outfit, rubbery and sharp-eared, locked away in his basement, presumably for fear of being sued for plagiarism by Bruce Wayne. There is the Comedian, real name Eddie Blake (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), whose tragic end, early in the film, we are invited to mourn, but who gets his revenge by popping up in innumerable flashbacks. There is Laurie, who goes by the sobriquet of Silk Spectre, as if hoping to become a top-class shampoo; she is played by Malin Akerman, whose line readings suggest that she is slightly defeated by the pressure of pretending to be one person, let alone two. Then there is Adrian Veidt (Matthew Goode), who likes to be called Ozymandias. Goode played Charles Ryder in last year’s “Brideshead Revisited,” and I fear that, even as Ozymandias murders millions from his Antarctic lair, which he does at the climax of “Watchmen,” Goode’s floppy blond locks and swallowed consonants remain those of a young gadabout who might, at worst, twist the leg off his Teddy bear.
from the issuecartoon banke-mail thisLast and hugest is Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup), who is buff, buck naked, and blue, like a porn star left overnight in a meat locker. Whether his fellow-Watchmen have true superpowers, as opposed to a pathological bent for fisticuffs, I never quite worked out, but this guy is the real deal. He was once a physicist, but, after an unfortunate mishap, he found himself reintegrated as a radioactive being, equipped to peer into the future, nip to Mars for the afternoon, and divide into multiples of himself for nuclear-powered group sex. I felt sorry for Crudup, a thoughtful actor forced to spout gibberish about the meaning of time and, much worse, to have that lovely shy smile of his wiped by special effects. Dr. Manhattan is central to Moore’s chronological conceit, which is that President Nixon (Robert Wisden), having used our blue friend to annihilate the Vietcong, wins the Vietnam War and, by 1985—the era in which the bulk of the tale takes place—is somehow serving a third term.
“Watchmen,” like “V for Vendetta,” harbors ambitions of political satire, and, to be fair, it should meet the needs of any leering nineteen-year-old who believes that America is ruled by the military-industrial complex, and whose deepest fear—deeper even than that of meeting a woman who requests intelligent conversation—is that the Warren Commission may have been right all along. The problem is that Snyder, following Moore, is so insanely aroused by the look of vengeance, and by the stylized application of physical power, that the film ends up twice as fascistic as the forces it wishes to lampoon. The result is perfectly calibrated for its target group: nobody over twenty-five could take any joy from the savagery that is fleshed out onscreen, just as nobody under eighteen should be allowed to witness it. You want to see Rorschach swing a meat cleaver repeatedly into the skull of a pedophile, and two dogs wrestle over the leg bone of his young victim? Go ahead. You want to see the attempted rape of a superwoman, her bright latex costume cast aside and her head banged against the baize of a pool table? The assault is there in Moore’s book, one panel of which homes in on the blood that leaps from her punched mouth, but the pool table is Snyder’s own embroidery. You want to hear Moore’s attempt at urban jeremiad? “This awful city, it screams like an abattoir full of slowed children.” That line from the book may be meant as a punky retread of James Ellroy, but it sounds to me like a writer trying much, much too hard; either way, it makes it directly into the movie, as one of Rorschach’s voice-overs. (And still the adaptation won’t be slavish enough for some.) Amid these pompous grabs at horror, neither author nor director has much grasp of what genuine, unhyped suffering might be like, or what pity should attend it; they are too busy fussing over the fate of the human race—a sure sign of metaphysical vulgarity—to be bothered with lesser plights. In the end, with a gaping pit where New York used to be, most of the surviving Watchmen agree that the loss of the Eastern Seaboard was a small price to pay for global peace. Incoherent, overblown, and grimy with misogyny, “Watchmen” marks the final demolition of the comic strip, and it leaves you wondering: where did the comedy go?
Anung Un Rama wrote:I
Some People just shouldn't be allowed on the Internet. I mean, of course she can have a different opinion about the movie, but if you read how she responded to some of the comments, I'm starting to doubt her journalistic credibility.
Are these items actually scenes in the movie?
Dogs fighting over, tearing apart, and eating a six-year-old girl--we're shown them chowing down on and tearing apart the remaining leg and leg bone, with the sock and shoe still on the bone as the dogs wrestle over it;
* A close up of man repeatedly getting an axe-blade driven through his skull while he's being butchered;
* At least two very graphic scenes of naked superhero "Dr. Manhattan" vaporizing people to just blood, limbs, and guts hanging from the ceiling or spread in the snow;
* Many scenes of Dr. Manhattan's computer generated penis swinging about;
* A kid biting a giant, bloody chunk of flesh out of another kid's face--he grows up to be "Rorschach," one of the superheroes' compatriots;
* A man's hands and arms being sawed off with an electric saw--we're shown the bloody stumps and the bloody sawed off limbs in close up shots;
* A man with vat of hot french fry oil deliberately thrown over his head--we literally see him fry, and he ultimately dies, we're told (no kidding);
* Many, many scenes of people's hands, arms, fingers being broken in half or crunched by the "superheroes";
* Cops being set on fire and burning to death by superhero compatriot "Rorschach;"
* Superhero "The Comedian" (a bad Robert Downey, Jr. look-alike) brutally beating and raping another superhero--tis movie concludes that the rape was a good thing b/c the slutty superhero had a slutty superhero daughter from him;
* Superhero "The Comedian" shooting and killing a Vietnamese woman because she's pregnant with his kid;
* Superhero "The Comedian" being thrown off a roof of a tall building--we see his body hit the ground and the blood flow out;
* Two superheroes have an explicit sex scene in a spaceship--she's on top, then he's on top, awesome--you can teach your young kids multiple sexual positions before they even reach puberty, by taking them to see this (there's a less explicit sex scene between the slutty superheroine and another superhero not long before that).
And these are just the highlights, plus superheroes hurling obscenities--great for the kiddies. There's so much more--along with horrible make-up, bad acting, and terrible computer generated images (including the penis). Not to mention, a bad, extremely slow, and boring script.
Dogs fighting over, tearing apart, and eating a six-year-old girl--we're shown them chowing down on and tearing apart the remaining leg and leg bone, with the sock and shoe still on the bone as the dogs wrestle over it;
* A close up of man repeatedly getting an axe-blade driven through his skull while he's being butchered;
* At least two very graphic scenes of naked superhero "Dr. Manhattan" vaporizing people to just blood, limbs, and guts hanging from the ceiling or spread in the snow;
* Many scenes of Dr. Manhattan's computer generated penis swinging about;
* A kid biting a giant, bloody chunk of flesh out of another kid's face--he grows up to be "Rorschach," one of the superheroes' compatriots;
* A man's hands and arms being sawed off with an electric saw--we're shown the bloody stumps and the bloody sawed off limbs in close up shots;
* A man with vat of hot french fry oil deliberately thrown over his head--we literally see him fry, and he ultimately dies, we're told (no kidding);
* Many, many scenes of people's hands, arms, fingers being broken in half or crunched by the "superheroes";
* Cops being set on fire and burning to death by superhero compatriot "Rorschach;"
* Superhero "The Comedian" (a bad Robert Downey, Jr. look-alike) brutally beating and raping another superhero--tis movie concludes that the rape was a good thing b/c the slutty superhero had a slutty superhero daughter from him;
* Superhero "The Comedian" shooting and killing a Vietnamese woman because she's pregnant with his kid;
* Superhero "The Comedian" being thrown off a roof of a tall building--we see his body hit the ground and the blood flow out;
* Two superheroes have an explicit sex scene in a spaceship--she's on top, then he's on top, awesome--you can teach your young kids multiple sexual positions before they even reach puberty, by taking them to see this (there's a less explicit sex scene between the slutty superheroine and another superhero not long before that).
And these are just the highlights, plus superheroes hurling obscenities--great for the kiddies. There's so much more--along with horrible make-up, bad acting, and terrible computer generated images (including the penis). Not to mention, a bad, extremely slow, and boring script.
If so, glad I passed.
Yes they are.
The people pointing these out are really only do so to shock their readership into a frothing at the mouth "won't someone think of the children" frenzy. What they don't mention is that each of these incidents are a vital part of showing the nature of the characters and in the context of their respective scenes the violent incidents are necessary. Indeed one of the major themes of watchmen is that Superheroes, if they did actually exist, would likely be very violent detached individuals whose morality would be far removed from those they are meant to be protecting.
I'm not sure why that reviewer was going on about the kiddies. This film is an 18 certificate.
I think many reviewers had no idea about what this story was about, did no research and simply assumed they were going to review another Spiderman/X-men type movie. They were then so shocked at seeing these nasty superheros they presumably concluded it was a Hollywood/liberal conspiracy to corrupt their children and went nuts.
I think their brains may actually explode if a Movie of Preacher was ever made!
Exactly. The point of Watchmen is sorta to point out that Superheroes would be people too. They'd be just as wierd and messed up as everyone else. The decent ones are the exception, because you've got to be a bit of a sadist or an extremist to dress up in a suit and fight crime.
It's nasty, but it's worth watching. Quite obviously not a kids movie. That just comes from an ignorant point of view on comics, ie. they are for kids and kids alone.
namegoeshere wrote:I said the graphic novel was so-so.
It would appear you said something different then what you thought you said.
This reminds me of when Jurassic Park came out and people threw fits that it scared their kids senseless and had to deal with nightmares and such. They didn't mention that Jurassic Park was rated R and the kids shouldn't have been their in the first place. Parents saw dinosaurs and assumed it was kid friendly.
Personally I thought it was a flawed movie but I had a good time and I'll probably get the directors cut when the DVD/Bluray comes out. I guess I'd put it at 7.5~8.
AVclub has a pretty good Book vs Film article up for the Watchmen.
namegoeshere wrote:The Graphic novel is overrated - some super big fans of it, drown out so many nonplussed (I'm nonplussed). Rorsch is a great character, if it was just hte Rorsch comic I would have loved it - the rest just so-so
Ahtman wrote:
namegoeshere wrote:The Graphic novel is overrated
namegoeshere wrote:I said the graphic novel was so-so.
It would appear you said something different then what you thought you said.
No, I summarized my position pretty accurately. Neither overrated nor so-so, is a harsh criticism. A perfectly good comic/movie can also be both so-so and overrated. I tell you what if you'd like to continue quibbling please pm me.
@Fraz,
yes, the movie is very violent, but as Lucius already mentioned, it's supposed to be. The high level of violence however, does not make the story any less good.
What I find interesting about this critic in particular, is that she doesn't seem to realize that fictional violence can be entertaining for a lot of people. If that is a good or a bad thing, should probably discussed in another thread.
The overrated part is what I think was being referred to as the trolling part. I don't think you are trolling, just ill informed. Not the so-so part, it's possible to not enjoy a work w/o it being to ones taste, it is rated pretty fairly and if you think it is overrated it is because you are missing what is so important about it. It is possible to not care for Citizen Kane and still appreciate the importance of it, for example. Not liking something isn't the same as understanding the importance of something.
I am a troll. I vomit hot bile upon yee. Yes I do. Please don't be offended because that is what trolls do. We have our mutations and live in dark caves. Sure we don't win any popularity contests but then again we don't want to.
I thought the movie was well worth watching especially if you were a fan of the graphic novel. The characters were well fleshed out and the story well done. The fight scenes were good and on par for the course. It's not a movie I would go see again but I would rate it 9+/10. My favorite characters were Dr. Manhattan, Rorsarch and the Comedian. They were the three most removed from society. Rorsarch reminded me of a darker version of Wolverine. Dr. Manhattan had the cosmic awareness... The symbol he burnt on his forehead is the scientific symbol for the element Hydrogen - one electron circling around a proton. The Comedian was a vile person but he displayed a small bit of humanity. It's been so long since I read the novel that I could only remember a few scenes from the original comic which probably made the movie more enjoyable for me. This has to rank right up there with my other favorite comicbook movies such as Daredevil and the second two Punisher movies. I noted there was a fair share of disturbing graphic violence at key points in the movie. I enjoyed the era in which the movie took place - this might or might not be a problem for younger viewers not familiar with that history. The music chosen was very fitting indeed.
I read Watchmen when it came out. I've loved it for about 20 years now.
Just saw the movie, and while it missed a few things, for the most part, I think it did the story justice.
Yes, there are sex scenes and "torture" scenes, but these are part of the story. This isn't a kids movie, and the rating should have given that away. Anyone going to see this thinking it would be Batman or Spiderman needs their head examined. This is more comparable to Silence of the Lambs or Pulp Fiction than any other comic movie, and you wouldn't take a kid to see those either. If you can't deal with a little male nudity (not what I'd call gratuitous either), you should stay home. But, again, this doesn't differ from the comic.
I thought the casting was excellent. I don't know why they had to make the change at the end, but it didn't really change the themes that it explored.
Off-topic@Anung-Actually, I'm with GBF on the Daredevil movie. IMHO, it got a bad rap because it came out during Affleck's long horrible fall. If it had come out before Gigli I think it would have a better rep. I think this way because I believe in that soociety is ridden with herd mentality and Shadenfreude.
Again this is my personal opinion based only on that I read Daredevil back in the early 80s and Affleck was, to me, the perfect choice. Only other recognizable star at the time that I can think off doing a good job of it would have been John Cusack but thats because Cusack rocks.
On- Topic, Haven't seen watchmen yet but am going to. Haven't seen anything here that would stop me. If its got an R rating then the "what about the children" people should be dragged in front of their peers and dealt with by said peers for exposing their kids to the movie.
If someone thinks there kids can handle it, thats there right to take them without hassle. Of course, it might be wise to preview the movie first but once done its their right to guide their children in the manner they see fit(within reason).
Personally, I love the blood and guts and sex in films, that's what the R rating is for. There's nothing better than when a director and producer say "feth PG-13, we want to make a move with some balls!". Sure, it had some scenes that were... sub-par, but I've grown tired of the movie industry providing me with "kid friendly" fight scenes. I mean, look what happened to "Live Free or Die Hard", John McCLain went from hard ass "hippy kay yay mother fether" to barely saying anything worse than ass. In the older films you see guys hit half a dozen times with blood bursting from their bodies like their blood pressure is 120 psi or something. In that one, there was no scene in the entire film that makes a crowd go "DAMN!". John McClain looks as threatening as Paris Hilton's dog in that film.. Rorschach on the other hand, is a baaaad man. I mean, taking down a whole SWAT team before jumping out the window then cracking half a dozen heads before a swarm of cops can finally bring him down? We're not even going to mention the prison scenes. I wouldn't approach that man if someone told me doing so would cure cancer! Hell.. even Dan, the quasi-homo hawk dude, executed an arm break that made the entire audience wince as we saw the bones burst through the unfortunate bastard's arm. I still will only give the movie a 7.5/10 though. It was long as hell and had a few boring ass scenes, and I too grew tired of Mr. Manhattan's little Manhattan swinging back and forth.
focusedfire wrote:
If someone thinks there kids can handle it, thats there right to take them without hassle. Of course, it might be wise to preview the movie first but once done its their right to guide their children in the manner they see fit(within reason).
While I agree with you in theory, anyone who thinks a movie featuring graphic depictions of torture, sex, rape and murder is appropriate for a 9-year-old needs their head examined.
I just found out that Solid Snake (David Hayter) did the original adaption of the movie.
That just raised my respect for the film Watchmen a great deal, due to something that's probably considered really superficial and idiotic. Solid Snake is awesome.
I definitely would not take anyone under the age of 15 to see the movie. There are some extremely disturbing scenes such as when Rorsach goes to take out the psycho killer and some of the prison scenes. The third Punisher movie still topped this one for the amount of extreme graphic violence.
Daredevil was a movie I liked because I could relate to the character and Ben Afleck did a fantastic job in the starring role.
I enjoyed the movie, and maybe I have low standards, but I didn't mind the acting. Maybe I wasn't horribly interested in Silk Specter as a character, but I always saw her as being mildly ditzy and shallow in the book.
I liked that they played up the violence to the point of being uncomfortable: it's, if not more realistic, at least shows how off these people are to go out and do that over and over again. Violence has consequences, and you can't beat a person unconscious and have him not suffer effects.
I'm guessing Doc's penis was simply the easiest way for the film to convey how detached he's gotten from humanity: not only is he nude and flapping, but nobody seems to care or point it out.
I thought his nudity just showed that he was comfortable with himself.
The movie cast Silk Specter as a vamp, leaving Dr. Manhattan on a whim to go start an affair with the Owlman. In the novel Dr. Manhattan left earth for Mars so the government then cut off her living expenses and she was forced to find some shelter.
the best scene was when manhattan was huge, and just imagining that giant blue member... wow
i wanna have sex with that blue guy if someone could hook a brother up
i want to have a passionate night in the owlship
someone spent days and days getting the jiggle right when he walked and I was way too aware of that. I wonder who did it, prob an intern. "welcome to ur pixar interview so what prior experience do you have" "o well you know manhattan's dilz? ya that was me "
yeah, you could totally see nightbats dilz, but it's manhattans i'm wondering about, When he's in his giant form, does he show off his junk?
Sure, the movie’s not so subtle homoerotic content will draw in gay viewers as it did Snyder’s 300. But contrast the simplicity of the
117 minutes of that movie – Gerard Butler and 299 other bikini clad warriors defend the honor of Sparta against an invincible army
until they’re all killed – compared to Watchmen’s convoluted 163. That’s an awfully long time to expect a lone blue penis (attached to
an admittedly spectacular body) to remain entertaining – especially one that’s not even real to begin with and never gets hard.
Watchmen could have used lots and lots of trimming and a fluffer to boot.
Polonius wrote:I'm guessing Doc's penis was simply the easiest way for the film to convey how detached he's gotten from humanity: not only is he nude and flapping, but nobody seems to care or point it out.
I always thought it was that and also to play into the god angle. He looks like a Greek statue come to life.
stonefox wrote:
giant blue junk for a majority of the movie
It is not really that much overall screen time it is just that so few movies do male full frontal that 10 seconds seems like forever I suppose.
stonefox wrote:Sure, the movie’s not so subtle homoerotic content will draw in gay viewers as it did Snyder’s 300.
I'm not sure showing a penis is enough to be homoerotic. Actually I am sure it isn't.
Green Blow Fly wrote:300 was by no means a movie with homosexual undertones. The Spartans' dress was simply accurately depicted.
G
Well sort of, if I remember the actual Spartans would have worn all of it except for the loin cloths. Jibblies hanging out. The homoeroticism leveled at it I think comes from every last person being ultra buff.
Green Blow Fly wrote:300 was by no means a movie with homosexual undertones. The Spartans' dress was simply accurately depicted.
G
Umm, no. The Spartans were not accurately depicted. Like all hoplites, they were heavy infantry, and were called heavy infantry because they wore heavy armour. Now, at various times the level of armour differed, but at a minimum it was considerably heavier than the armour of contemporary armies, such as the Persians.
In fact, the Battle of Thermopylae shown in 300 could be considered the logical consequence of a force of heavy armour defending a narrow pass against a lightly armed army more accustomed to open battles of manoeuvre.
In short, they didn't fight bare chested, that's ridiculous.
And yes, 300 can be seen as homoerotic. It wasn't the dominant theme, and I doubt it was even an intended theme, but pretending it isn't the background is simply wrong.
If people like seeing men wearing little but a few clothes, shaved gym bodies, beards, good looking actors, slo-mo, Vaseline on the lens, etc etc. Then they will like 300
Anung Un Rama wrote:@Fraz,
yes, the movie is very violent, but as Lucius already mentioned, it's supposed to be. The high level of violence however, does not make the story any less good.
What I find interesting about this critic in particular, is that she doesn't seem to realize that fictional violence can be entertaining for a lot of people. If that is a good or a bad thing, should probably discussed in another thread.
I don't want to go into what the reviewer said, because thats not relevant to me.
She did do a service though. In describing those events, and having them confirmed, I'm glad I am not attending, as thats not my cup of tea.
Frankly its one thing to say its violent. Its another to say there are multiple rapes, amputations etc etc. Schindlers List was violent, but you really did know that going in. Grindhouse is violent (I think, never saw), and anyone stupid enough to see it knew that as well.
But it needs to be said how violent it really is, so people can make an informed decision.
Green Blow Fly wrote:300 was by no means a movie with homosexual undertones. The Spartans' dress was simply accurately depicted.
G
Umm, no. The Spartans were not accurately depicted. Like all hoplites, they were heavy infantry, and were called heavy infantry because they wore heavy armour. Now, at various times the level of armour differed, but at a minimum it was considerably heavier than the armour of contemporary armies, such as the Persians.
In fact, the Battle of Thermopylae shown in 300 could be considered the logical consequence of a force of heavy armour defending a narrow pass against a lightly armed army more accustomed to open battles of manoeuvre.
In short, they didn't fight bare chested, that's ridiculous.
And yes, 300 can be seen as homoerotic. It wasn't the dominant theme, and I doubt it was even an intended theme, but pretending it isn't the background is simply wrong.
IIRC they had
1. Clothes. I know, shocking. tunic thingy, sandals and cape for ze sleeping.
2. Armor (bronze) large round shield, bronze helmet, bronze greaves, may have had forearm guars which would have been bronze, and cuirass- typically composite cloth/glue, plates over a cloth backing, or uber armor made of complete bronze.
I must say I enjoyed 300 immensely. Deep it was not, but cool it be.
Yeah it was cool. Heavy armor did not exist during that period. I see no reason why they all not be buff. Was Troy starring Brad Pitt geared for homo erotism?
Sure, the movie’s not so subtle homoerotic content will draw in gay viewers as it did Snyder’s 300.
Gerard Butler and 299 other bikini clad warriors defend the honor of Sparta against an invincible army
until they’re all killed
Ok I've had just about enough of the Dr Manhattan's penis bs. Is everyone such a homophobe that they have to complain about the naked blue guy?
He's naked even more in the comic. You know what? I'm GLAD he's naked. I really am.
Manhattan's gradual retreat from humanity is portrayed through his costume getting smaller and smaller the older he gets; The further time goes by, the less 'human' he feels, so the less 'human' he acts.
Clothing is a nessessity for humankind. Seeing as Manhattans self-image tells him he is no longer human, he is not bound my a human morality code, so therefore has no need for clothes on a moral basis.
They guy has no physical need for clothes either; he doesn't get cold or dirty so he really doesn't need them. The fact Snyder kept that it really pleased me. It's important.
Secondly. Homoeroticism in 300? I've heard that before too. Again that just sounds like homophobia. "299 bikini-clad warriors"?
In history (and strangely enough, Frank Miller's comic), the Spartans went everywhere nude. For almost the same reason as Dr M.
The Spartans viewed clothes as promoting prudity, and by being naked, the Spartans viewed themselves as being free from the bothers and fears that clothes gave them.
If you don't like a bit of man-meat in a movie, thank your lucky stars Zack Snyder didn't decide to have Spartans all naked, as they should have been.
I don't see any homophobia anywhere, bro. All I see are enthusiastic people who like the sweet guy action going on in Watchmen and 300. I know I'll watch men sometime this week.
Green Blow Fly wrote:Yeah it was cool. Heavy armor did not exist during that period. I see no reason why they all not be buff. Was Troy starring Brad Pitt geared for homo erotism?
G
No, they were heavily armoured for the period. While that doesn't mean anything like the heavy armour of latter periods, it did cover the body. I said it before, the Greeks at Thermopylae were as deadly as they were because they were heavy infantry grinding up wave after wave of light infantry, who couldn't use their mobility due to the defensive position taken.
The film shouldn't be criticised for going another route, there were monsters, a nine foot Xerxes, the absence of anyone at the battle but Spartans, and the crazy bit about Spartans fighting for freedom. With all that the film obviously wasn't attempting an accurate recreation, so the lack of armour wasn't a problem. It was stylised violence.
However, pretending actual Spartans looked anything like the dudes in the movie, that be nonsense.
And no, Troy wasn't geared for homoeroticism. Both had pretty men wearing little clothing, but in Troy the pretty men were spending their time chasing after the ladies. It seems to me you don't want there to be a homoerotic subtext because you like the movie. Dude, let it go. Liking a movie that has a homoerotic subtext doesn't say anything about you. Everyone likes Top Gun, and that film is more homoerotic than gay porn.
Frazzled wrote:IIRC they had
1. Clothes. I know, shocking. tunic thingy, sandals and cape for ze sleeping.
2. Armor (bronze) large round shield, bronze helmet, bronze greaves, may have had forearm guars which would have been bronze, and cuirass- typically composite cloth/glue, plates over a cloth backing, or uber armor made of complete bronze.
I must say I enjoyed 300 immensely. Deep it was not, but cool it be.
I got pretty bored by the end, to be honest. The first fight was awesome, as the Spartans formed the shield wall and shoved the Persian unit into the sea, it was pretty different to other fighting scenes. Then they ditched the shield wall and started having Spartans running around, and the thing devolved into slo-mo scene after slo-mo scene, with Spartans hacking up useless Persians, half of whom didn't even bother to swing their swords.
But that appears to be the natural order between us. If you think something I'll think the opposite . I'm going to check out Watchmen this week and I'll tell you if I like it. If I do stay well away
Sure, the movie’s not so subtle homoerotic content will draw in gay viewers as it did Snyder’s 300.
Gerard Butler and 299 other bikini clad warriors defend the honor of Sparta against an invincible army
until they’re all killed
Ok I've had just about enough of the Dr Manhattan's penis bs. Is everyone such a homophobe that they have to complain about the naked blue guy?
He's naked even more in the comic. You know what? I'm GLAD he's naked. I really am.
Manhattan's gradual retreat from humanity is portrayed through his costume getting smaller and smaller the older he gets; The further time goes by, the less 'human' he feels, so the less 'human' he acts.
Clothing is a nessessity for humankind. Seeing as Manhattans self-image tells him he is no longer human, he is not bound my a human morality code, so therefore has no need for clothes on a moral basis.
They guy has no physical need for clothes either; he doesn't get cold or dirty so he really doesn't need them. The fact Snyder kept that it really pleased me. It's important.
Secondly. Homoeroticism in 300? I've heard that before too. Again that just sounds like homophobia. "299 bikini-clad warriors"?
In history (and strangely enough, Frank Miller's comic), the Spartans went everywhere nude. For almost the same reason as Dr M.
The Spartans viewed clothes as promoting prudity, and by being naked, the Spartans viewed themselves as being free from the bothers and fears that clothes gave them.
If you don't like a bit of man-meat in a movie, thank your lucky stars Zack Snyder didn't decide to have Spartans all naked, as they should have been.
I agree with you on Dr Manhattan. A good point well made.
But the Spartans wore armour. They were heavy infantry, so they wore armour. It's not a debatable point.
It's a lot more than the leather undies in the movie. What are you trying to achieve here, what makes you want to believe the get up in the movie was historically accurate?
Frazzled wrote:IIRC they had
1. Clothes. I know, shocking. tunic thingy, sandals and cape for ze sleeping.
2. Armor (bronze) large round shield, bronze helmet, bronze greaves, may have had forearm guars which would have been bronze, and cuirass- typically composite cloth/glue, plates over a cloth backing, or uber armor made of complete bronze.
I must say I enjoyed 300 immensely. Deep it was not, but cool it be.
I got pretty bored by the end, to be honest. The first fight was awesome, as the Spartans formed the shield wall and shoved the Persian unit into the sea, it was pretty different to other fighting scenes. Then they ditched the shield wall and started having Spartans running around, and the thing devolved into slo-mo scene after slo-mo scene, with Spartans hacking up useless Persians, half of whom didn't even bother to swing their swords.
But that appears to be the natural order between us. If you think something I'll think the opposite . I'm going to check out Watchmen this week and I'll tell you if I like it. If I do stay well away
1. Have fun Sebbie. You might really like it and thats cool. I'm not saying anything ill of this film, just that it doesn't fit my tastes (and I can't get past the costumes). Rape and child murder I can do without at the current time.
2. I'm not saying 300 is high art by any means. Its just stylized cool. An excellent film to play while working out. One has to breakup continuous episodes of Babylon Five somehow.
Light armor was what the Persians had. Loose clothing and light wicker shields. The only thing lighter would be akin to no armor or just Zulu shields.
Greek hoplites were literally protected head to foot in armor. It has to be noted that cloth armor is not a shirt but a series of sheets, soaked in glue. it was more akin to modern composite armor and was exceedingly strong for its weight.
Even the Romans viewed hoplites as heavily armored dudes, and the Romans knew a thing or two about armor.
Having said that, the only thing the Spartans in 300 didn't have were 1) a tunic worn under the armor; 2) the cuirass. Leather jock straps were not worn by anyone except maybe the Vikings and guys in Hercules movies (man that would stink after a while). I just thought the shirtless thing was eye candy for the ladies dragged along to see the movie.
I enjoyed the movie, but I think it should have been shorter. I wouldn't mind that 4 hour directors cut one review mentioned if I knew I was watching a 4 hour directors cut, but 2 hrs 44 minutes was just too long.. but then, there isn't much that could have been cut.
I liked how one review said it followed the comic exactly, then blasted all the violence, gore and bad stuff.. yet that's exactly how the comic was, so why are they surprised? if they knew the comic, then they should have known how the movie would be. If they're worried about the kids seeing it, why would kids see it at all if it's rated R and there's boobies in it? Guess they gotta go back to parenting school.
IMO, if you liked the comic you should enjoy the film. If you didn't like the comic and had no idea what it was about or are expecting another happy xmen ripoff, the film may not be for you.
Frazzled wrote:1. Have fun Sebbie. You might really like it and thats cool. I'm not saying anything ill of this film, just that it doesn't fit my tastes (and I can't get past the costumes). Rape and child murder I can do without at the current time.
Meh, violence and other stuff is contextual. I'll wait to see, because it might be gratuitous or it might be worthwhile. Find out in a couple of days.
2. I'm not saying 300 is high art by any means. Its just stylized cool. An excellent film to play while working out. One has to breakup continuous episodes of Babylon Five somehow.
See, there it is again. I don't like Babylon 5 either. Or working out. I'm like the anti-Fraz. Or you're the anti-Seb.
It's a lot more than the leather undies in the movie. What are you trying to achieve here, what makes you want to believe the get up in the movie was historically accurate?
It was a movie. Often times they are not that accurate since the primary intent is entertainment. For example I somehow doubt the oracle would have floated.
My thoughts on the watchmen. I gave it a 6/10 It was funtionaly a solid movie, with on-par acting ( Silk spectre II was kinda wooden) And above par effects. Now for my gripes. Remember this is just my Opinion. It was very very violent movie. Thats not a badd thing, But then Most violent movies are just senseless summer fun. Watchmen add an almost malovence to it. Your less worried about who's going to stop stis sick bastard and more into what horrible punishment can be inflicted on the human body. The women in the movie are as shallow as a 2 foot grave. The love scene was laughably bad. The ending made no sense, and the Energy crisis part seemed tacked on, because it was. The movie clobs you over the head with points it was trying to make (everybody wantes to rue the world musak). Now with all of that said, The movie was quite good, and most of my gripes personal. I noticed just as many people cheering as walking out, and to me each one had valid reasons to do so.
Frazzled wrote:1. Have fun Sebbie. You might really like it and thats cool. I'm not saying anything ill of this film, just that it doesn't fit my tastes (and I can't get past the costumes). Rape and child murder I can do without at the current time.
Meh, violence and other stuff is contextual. I'll wait to see, because it might be gratuitous or it might be worthwhile. Find out in a couple of days.
2. I'm not saying 300 is high art by any means. Its just stylized cool. An excellent film to play while working out. One has to breakup continuous episodes of Babylon Five somehow.
See, there it is again. I don't like Babylon 5 either. Or working out. I'm like the anti-Fraz. Or you're the anti-Seb.
I'm older, you're the antiFraz.
"I knew (Thomas) Jefferson, and you're no Thomas Jefferson" the epic Frazzled / Wilson debate 1908.
EDIT: Not a B5 fan? Oh the Humanity! Please report to the B5 re-education center immediately.
I think what people miss, about 300, and Watchmen (same director too), is that while Dr. Manhattan walks around naked, and the Spartans are bare chested, this is because that is how the comics that the movies are based on are written. Anyone who went to see 300 thinking it was going to be a historical reenactment doesn't get it. Anyone who goes to see Watchmen thinking that it's another Spiderman doesn't get it.
Watchmen is the most influential comic ever written. It changed the industry. It changed how people looked at comics in general. It turned them from something for kids into an art form that could be respected by adults. Does that translate into the movie? No. The movie is not going to revolutionize film-making. It doesn't do anything new, and mature themes have been shown in movies for years. But, the movie is an excellent adaptation of an important book. I think that's the best way to explain it.
I didn't see the violence in the movie to be any worse (or better) than in the book. There are certain things that are necessary to understand the characters, whether it be what turns Kovaks into Rorchark or the Comedian's attempted rape of Sally. I thought that Dr. Manhattan's "junk" was understated, much as it is in the comic, and unless you were going out of your way to stare at it, it wasn't like it was made into a focal point of any scene. Anyone making a big issue out of this needs to grow up.
Green Blow Fly wrote:The Teutons cavlary who brought about the downfall of the roman empire wore heavy armor... Plate metal.
I’m confused, what exactly constitutes heavy armor to you?
*head-helmet
*chest cloth/cloth bronze combo or full bronze cuirass
*greaves
*forearms
The only thing not covered were tops of the arms and thighs, which were covered by their shields.
That’s way more armor than any German wussy boy of the period, and the most armor you’d see for a thousand years outside of maybe China. Whats the deal?
Frazzled wrote:I’m confused, what exactly constitutes heavy armor to you?
*head-helmet
*chest cloth/cloth bronze combo or full bronze cuirass
*greaves
*forearms
The only thing not covered were tops of the arms and thighs, which were covered by their shields.
That’s way more armor than any German wussy boy of the period, and the most armor you’d see for a thousand years outside of maybe China. Whats the deal?
Yeah, I don't know how this is even a discussion. It was light armor by medieval standards, but hoplites were probably the most armored warriors in the world at the time...and absolutely were the "heavy infantry" of the day.
Another important point here is that weapons tech isn't what it was during later periods either. There's a certain amount of relativity at work here.
Edit: I wasn't particularly fond of 300. And I owned (and liked) the comic long before I saw the movie. I know a phalanx depicted realistically isn't nearly as cinematic as guys leaping around on wires. But I guess I prefer that degree of stylization in a comic more than a film. IIRC, some studio had the rights to Gates of Fire (Pressfield's book) around the same time, but it never happened because of the competing 300 project. :(
Heavy armor can stop a spear or sword. It is all relative and I know you probably don't want to concede the point. I understand that at the time when the Wright brothers invented the airplane that was considered something along the lines of a 747 or even moreso.
Hoplite armor could stop a spear or sword without difficulty. That was the problem that the Persians (and Isrealis interestingly) ran into, shepherds with pointy sticks vs. invulnerable killing machines.
Now I'lll give on the tanks To a tanker anything not in a Challenger/M1 is not heavily armored
I'd like to point out that while rape and child killing are in the movie, they aren't depicted; The child was killed but the murder wasn't shown. Yes there are two dogs fight over a piece of the carcass, but this scene was used to show the audience that the child was actually dead, which wasn't certain yet. The rape is interrupted and not actually consumated, yet you know it would have happened had somebody not walked in. These scenes are not gratuitous, they are there for plot purposes and do a lot to further and deepen the story. Yes, the violence is over the top, but it isn't prevalent throughout the movie, and it is actually quite rare if you take in the running time.
I'll second what lordhat said - but I still felt the violence that does occur was a little gratuitous. Some things were changed from the comic, and seemed to only be changed to be more gory. Other things are straight from the comic but are much more disturbing live and in motion on a huge screen than in a comic panel or two.
That being said, as a fan of the comic, I enjoyed the movie, even with its flaws. It provides a lot of "wow, that is neat, and straight from the comic" moments which I appreciated immensly. I have no idea how it works as a movie without pre-knowledge of the plot, but it seems like it would be hard to follow and hard to understand some of the characters and whether they're being portrayed in a positive light. I've read a lot of reviews that seem to complain that these heroes aren't very heroic...which is in a nutshell one of the big themes of the story.
I want to watch it at some point, but I won't rush to the cinema. Tbh I'd never heard of the comic until the movie popped up, and after reading stuff about it online, I'd probably consider the story weak now compared to stories that have come out via Marvel, Indies and DC since.
In the same way I feel Lord of the Rings is no where near the best Fantasy piece of work anymore, first or first of note does not always equal best.
It's also interesting that it came out at around the same time as the Mutant Massacre, which in my view was another defining storyline that changed comics for the better.
Sounds over the top as a film, but then honestly what did anyone expect from the Director of 300.
Green Blow Fly wrote:Heavy armor can stop a spear or sword. It is all relative and I know you probably don't want to concede the point.
As Frazzled said, Greek shields held up really well vs. the light Persian weaponry. If they hadn't, the battle for Thermopylae would have been over quickly, bottleneck or not.
And while a hoplite's armor doesn't compare to medieval mail or plate, it probably would have been considered heavy armor for quite a while after the Persian war. IIRC, the trend after the war was to lighter armor and greater mobility. Macedonian phalangites a hundred years later are probably a good example. They used smaller, lighter shields and were spaced farther apart.
But overall, no one should concede the point to you, because this was yours...
The Spartans' dress was simply accurately depicted.
In some ways, I'm a little disappointed that the movie is basically the comic book in film. That seems to always be a recipe for failure, the original media is usually the best way to convey the story. To me, it's like reading the novelization or comic adaptation of a movie (and I have them for Alien because I'm a geek). It conveys the story, but it's just not the same thing. I was kinda hoping they would 'update' the story some. I don't know that nearly 25 years later the threat of nuclear war has the same impact. Reagan was clearly viewed as a hawk that would press the big red button if threatened (or if confused by old age as in the Genesis video). Also, I think the Nite Owl I/Hollis Mason book adds a lot to the story, at least from the 'yeah, you had to be nutty to wear a costume and fight crime' angle, and I don't know how you incorporate that. Mason also makes a great point in his writing - when the villians stopped wearing silly costumes, it just seemed silly for the heroes to do so.
Plus, it's Zak Snyder. He strikes me as a supermodel director. Sure, it looks pretty, but there's not a lot of depth to it.
Having said all that, I'd still like to go see it. If for no other reason than it's three hours away from the kids. If people take their kids to an R movie, I have no sympathy for the parents (I do for the kids, they don't know better).
The joy of the MPAA. I remember when Stand by Me was out in theatres. It got an R rating because of a few bad words and they show a dead body. But, it's a great movie, and was suitable for most teens. And a lot of parents took kids that were 10 or 12 to it.
Didn't George Carlin have a routine about that? It's alright to kill people, but not show them making love? Something about replacing "kill" with... another word that probably won't get through the filter. "We're gonna <bleep> you sheriff, but we're gonna <bleep> you slow."
Don't don't forget, Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns came out in this time frame, iirc, a few years after Watchmen. The mid 80's did change comics, and they weren't just for kids anymore.
It is the plot of the comic book on film, not really the comic itself. For better or for worse.
Personally I think taking a book of any kind and making it into a movie without a serious re-working is trouble. Hollywood always gets caught up in plot plot plot, which tends to hurt any story which has a slower buildup.
Kubrick was a master of this - he was able to distill the meaning and message of a book or story, without necessarily getting caught up in having to hit every plot point. He gave it room to breath, cut things, changed things - all to make it work in a different medium.
I think with comics it's harder than with a novel, because there's already a visual element. Zak Snyder gives you constant reproductions of frames from the comic, for the parts (plot) that he keeps in. My wife and I really enjoyed it - seeing certian scenes in live action (like the comediens funeral, and the flashback scenes...really anything in the first 1/3rd or so of the movie) was really entertaining. But the movie feels like it's on rails, and cannot jump them.
I found it unfortunate that most of the changes that were made seemed to be in the name of more graphic violence or more graphic sex. But I wasn't surprised, based on the director.
It was still a satisfying and enjoyable movie. I think they did an ok job showing the moral ambiguity of all of the characters actions, but obviously not everyone is seeing that.
Anung Un Rama wrote:I didn't think the follwoing would be worth a new thread, but I thought I'll post it anyway:
Necros wrote:One guy came in the theater with 5 boys all around 10. They lasted till the jon & laurie 4 hands scene, then they all left
Interesting that you mention that. Because I just read this "review". Try to read it and then the comments below.
Later she posted this.
Some People just shouldn't be allowed on the Internet. I mean, of course she can have a different opinion about the movie, but if you read how she responded to some of the comments, I'm starting to doubt her journalistic credibility.
Guess what? We know there are bad people and that people are everyday people with problems. If you don't know that, and you think a movie like this is necessary to make the point, you're even more warped and stupid than I originally diagnosed.
And maybe your sister should be fed to dogs and your mother raped and your brother should have his arms sawed off (as they do in this snuff/torture-porn movie). You know, just to make the point.
I think I am actually dumber for reading that "review". I'm not surprised the reviewer didn't get it, I've read other reviews where the person was clueless that there was even an original graphic novel.
The movie was fantastic in that it accomplished what it set out to do, capture the feel and tone of the Watchmen and do justice to the source material. The pacing was fantastic, in a 2h45 movie I never looked at my watch or felt there was a scene that could have been cut down for pacing reasons. The violence was graphic, just as it was meant to be. This isn't a kiddies story, this is a real and brutal look at the superhero genre and a spectacular "what if" story. I won't give it a 10/10 cause that's reserved for films like The Dark Knight but I will give it a solid 9/10.
Green Blow Fly wrote:300 was by no means a movie with homosexual undertones. The Spartans' dress was simply accurately depicted.
G
Umm, no. The Spartans were not accurately depicted. Like all hoplites, they were heavy infantry, and were called heavy infantry because they wore heavy armour. Now, at various times the level of armour differed, but at a minimum it was considerably heavier than the armour of contemporary armies, such as the Persians.
In fact, the Battle of Thermopylae shown in 300 could be considered the logical consequence of a force of heavy armour defending a narrow pass against a lightly armed army more accustomed to open battles of manoeuvre.
In short, they didn't fight bare chested, that's ridiculous.
And yes, 300 can be seen as homoerotic. It wasn't the dominant theme, and I doubt it was even an intended theme, but pretending it isn't the background is simply wrong.
Of course they didn't fight bare-chested. But look at any piece of Greek pottery or sculpture from that time period and what do you see, bunch of naked Greeks beating the crap out of their enemies. It was that aesthetic that was used in the 300 comic and therefore in the 300 movie. It wasn't an accurate representation of the battle of Thermopylae, it was an accurate representation of the Greek story of the battle of Thermopylae. Hell you even had two lines from Herodotus (Spartans, lay down your weapons... and Fight in the shade) who wasn't there so for all we know made up the lines. Anyone who thinks 300 = Homoeroticism is really missing the point.
Green Blow Fly wrote:Heavy armor can stop a spear or sword. It is all relative and I know you probably don't want to concede the point.
As Frazzled said, Greek shields held up really well vs. the light Persian weaponry. If they hadn't, the battle for Thermopylae would have been over quickly, bottleneck or not.
And while a hoplite's armor doesn't compare to medieval mail or plate, it probably would have been considered heavy armor for quite a while after the Persian war. IIRC, the trend after the war was to lighter armor and greater mobility. Macedonian phalangites a hundred years later are probably a good example. They used smaller, lighter shields and were spaced farther apart.
But overall, no one should concede the point to you, because this was yours...
The Spartans' dress was simply accurately depicted.
Sorry but I just can't see that what the Spartans wore could classify as heavy armor. To me the armor they did wear in the movie was accurately depicted in the sense that what I saw looked like a Spartan to me. They had their classic helmets by which they are best recognized, they had their shields, they had their leggings and they had their spears. As the movie well portrayed their shields and potent offense is what deflected enemy attacks. To me it is a point not worth getting jazzed about that they weren't wearing any upper body armor. The vast majority of the people who watched the movie are simply not students of ancient warfare by and large. If that single aspect made the movie less enjoyable for you then try to realize that most movies are made to tell a story and are often quite imperfect when it comes to exceedingly accurately portray the setting.
Green Blow Fly wrote:It was a movie. Often times they are not that accurate since the primary intent is entertainment. For example I somehow doubt the oracle would have floated.
G
You're not even reading this thread, are you?
I said earlier;
“The film shouldn't be criticised for going another route, there were monsters, a nine foot Xerxes, the absence of anyone at the battle but Spartans, and the crazy bit about Spartans fighting for freedom. With all that the film obviously wasn't attempting an accurate recreation, so the lack of armour wasn't a problem. It was stylised violence.
However, pretending actual Spartans looked anything like the dudes in the movie, that be nonsense.”
Do you understand that? There is nothing wrong with the movie taking a stylised depiction of the Spartan’s war gear, because everything else was just as stylised. But pretending their armour was historical is nutty.
Redbeard wrote:I think what people miss, about 300, and Watchmen (same director too), is that while Dr. Manhattan walks around naked, and the Spartans are bare chested, this is because that is how the comics that the movies are based on are written. Anyone who went to see 300 thinking it was going to be a historical reenactment doesn't get it. Anyone who goes to see Watchmen thinking that it's another Spiderman doesn't get it.
No, we all get that. No-one has criticised 300 for a lack of historical accuracy. Xerxes was nine foot tall and he had ogres on his side.
We are trying to explain to Green Blow Fly that it wasn’t accurate. The debate isn’t ‘was it bad because it was inaccurate’ because the answer there is ‘no, it’s a heavily stylised movie’. The debate is ‘is the armour depicted accurate’ and the answer ‘no, of course it isn’t, and basic reading of Hoplites will tell you how they were very heavily armoured’.
As Oszy has pointed out the Spartans were visibly shown in a manner in which most movie goers would recognize them. Obviously it's not like Zeus came down from Mount Olympus and started farting lightning bolts at the Persians or Ares showed up as a giant berzerker killing machine. It's splitting atoms to say they were nor correctly portrayed, they sure as heck looked like Spartans to me. To be quite frank this is the first I have ever seen anyone bring up the subject.
G
sebster wrote:
Green Blow Fly wrote:It was a movie. Often times they are not that accurate since the primary intent is entertainment. For example I somehow doubt the oracle would have floated.
G
You're not even reading this thread, are you?
I said earlier;
“The film shouldn't be criticised for going another route, there were monsters, a nine foot Xerxes, the absence of anyone at the battle but Spartans, and the crazy bit about Spartans fighting for freedom. With all that the film obviously wasn't attempting an accurate recreation, so the lack of armour wasn't a problem. It was stylised violence.
However, pretending actual Spartans looked anything like the dudes in the movie, that be nonsense.”
Do you understand that? There is nothing wrong with the movie taking a stylised depiction of the Spartan’s war gear, because everything else was just as stylised. But pretending their armour was historical is nutty.
Ozymandias wrote:Of course they didn't fight bare-chested.
Try explaining that to Green Blow Fly. He claimed their leather undies get up was historically accurate. All I’ve been trying to do was explain that it wasn’t actually all that accurate.
But look at any piece of Greek pottery or sculpture from that time period and what do you see, bunch of naked Greeks beating the crap out of their enemies. It was that aesthetic that was used in the 300 comic and therefore in the 300 movie. It wasn't an accurate representation of the battle of Thermopylae, it was an accurate representation of the Greek story of the battle of Thermopylae. Hell you even had two lines from Herodotus (Spartans, lay down your weapons... and Fight in the shade) who wasn't there so for all we know made up the lines.
Yeah, absolutely. Like when I pointed out earlier the film included countless stylistic flourishes, and the armour was just one more. Not being historically accurate does not make it a bad movie, but it does mean comments that it was realistic are bad comments.
Anyone who thinks 300 = Homoeroticism is really missing the point.
It’s fair to say homoeroticism wasn’t an intended theme, some people might dispute that but I wouldn’t. But whenever you get 300 muscled men baring their finely shave chests, and pack them close in together and start having them stab their spears into other men, it isn’t rocket science to see how people might detect that theme.
And I’ll say it again, just because a film you might like has homo-erotic undertones, it doesn’t say anything about you.
Green Blow Fly wrote:Heavy armor can stop a spear or sword. It is all relative and I know you probably don't want to concede the point. I understand that at the time when the Wright brothers invented the airplane that was considered something along the lines of a 747 or even moreso.
G
You thought the armour was accurate. It has been explained to you that it wasn't. Now you're prattling on about how it wasn't heavy armour according the definition of heavy armour from a later period. Stop pretending you weren't wrong. Take your licks, admit your mistake and we can all move on. As it is, you're embaressing yourself.
Green Blow Fly wrote:As Oszy has pointed out the Spartans were visibly shown in a manner in which most movie goers would recognize them. Obviously it's not like Zeus came down from Mount Olympus and started farting lightning bolts at the Persians or Ares showed up as a giant berzerker killing machine. It's splitting atoms to say they were nor correctly portrayed, they sure as heck looked like Spartans to me. To be quite frank this is the first I have ever seen anyone bring up the subject.
What?
I pointed it out first. When you seemed unaware that I had made that point, I repeated it for you. Now you quote that post, and then talk about how Ozzy just made this startling new point. What is wrong with you?
Stuff historical accuracy. The film kicked arse, and thats all I wanted it to do.
Put it this way, in Scotland, you can go to Stirling, the former capital, and see a statue of William Wallace. Except it isn't. At all. It's a statue of Mel Gibson.
chaplaingrabthar wrote:What's wrong with a little latent homoeroticism in movies anyway? It's just another demographic to appeal to.
My Girlfriend was actually very glad about all the men in 300 and rather enjoyed the reversal of norm with watchmen where it was the guy (albeit the blue one) who was naked a lot. So... yeah in some ways they are reaching out to another demographic.
Ok I went to see Watchmen again yesterday, this time with a group of friends who weren't familiar with the source material. This time opinion was spilt 50/50 between those who loved and hated it. Generally however I noticed that those who were disappointed where those whose expectations were different to that which the finished film delivered. I.e. they were expecting a more traditional Superhero film.
It was interesting to hear the opinion of the layman and, on reflection, I can see why they were disappointed. Most of the complaints were that the film was slow, lacked pace and had little action. Perhaps these were things I had overlooked as I was watching a translation of a book I loved to film and I must say a few nitpicks aside I wasn't disappointed. I even accepted the need for most of the changed Snyder made.
I think the problem is that this a literal translation of book to film will leave most people shocked. Books don't require the same pacing as a film for example. Books can also spend a great deal of time building up a character, as watchmen does, far more time than a conventional film ever should. Especially considering that much of Watchmen deals with flashbacks and the actual events of the main plot really only account for about half the film. Watchmen is really character driven as opposed to most films which are plot driven. Each 'slow' scene whilst have little relevance to the plot is vital to developing the characters. The funeral scene for example, which some of my friends didn’t see the point of, I think is utterly vital to development of all the characters.
Not to mention that the film ends of what can only be described as downer. Millions dead and despite a ensemble cast of 'heroes' they are either so far removed from humanity they no longer are capable of telling right from wrong, absolutists who care little for any form of due process and so think noting of violently dispatching anyone they personally deem as 'wicked' or nihilists who care really don't believe there are any innocents left and so think nothing if they are caught in the firing line. Basically the Heroes are actually shower of bastards. There are only 2 idealists in the whole bunch who manage to retain any real form of humanity. Its easy to see why many people would not be 'entertained' by film with such a bizarre set of protagonists.
So should Snyder have realised this and changed the film to suit more conventional film making methods? Personally I must say kudos to Mr Snyder for having courage to say no. Even though he will annoy as many people as he will please by doing so. The result is IMHO a flawed masterpiece. It is only flawed in so much as to make it a good film in the conventional sense would have been to ignore or vastly dilute the themes of the book. I see now why many dubbed it 'unfilmable'.
He has created a film which is totally at odds with the superhero movie genre, which is going to alienate many people who just want to see another x-men type flick. They will in all likelihood be disappointed by the lack of sympathetic characters, the relatively low amount of action and large amounts of dialog. Frankly I don’t care if they are disappointed. I think its great that film goers have their exceptions challenged. I do however also hope they have the courage to look at the film again with a different set of expectations and realise just how powerful this story is.
Been to see it tonight. I absolutely loved it. Surprisingly thought provoking, well shot, well lit, dialogue was good, soundtrack was excellent, everything about it worked.
Is it a faithful rendition of the Comic book? Buggered if I know, I've never read it.
And besides, I fail to see how it not being 100% accruate or nerd pleasing prevents it being a highly entertaining film in it's own right.
Oh, and in a turn up for the books in modern cinema....I could actually follow the action during the punch ups! No more blurred, darkened fights where I can't tell whose arm has just been ripped off and inserted up whose rectum. Oh no. Nice and clear.
Went to see the movie. I loved it. Especially because everyone in the movie was expecting a superhero movie like spiderman. Other than some different twists, I liked most of it because it was faithful to the graphic novel.
I think they did a sterling job of characterisation.
The way the characters views intertwine and diverge is awesome. Most credit to Mr Moore for creating them that way, but top marks to Mr Snyder for pulling it off on celluloid.
The fights were also suitably 'human'. Predominatly skill rather than strength based combat is always a pleasure to watch on the big screen, and the lack of wire work was extremely refreshing (I mean, come on. Austin Powers took the piss out of it years ago...)
11/10--- A true epic. I never read it, and so I don't know what the comic would rate in comparison, but the ending with Dr. Manhattan being the scapegoat makes a lot more sense to me than some ill-defined alien attack. And, yes they did make Nixon look like a caricature of himself in the later scenes. I think it was intentional. And Malin Ackerman is definitely third place in the wooden acting championships, with Keanu first and Hayden second.
warpcrafter wrote:11/10--- A true epic. I never read it, and so I don't know what the comic would rate in comparison, but the ending (spoiler snipped)
The comic was a deconstruction of comics, which are famous for featuring incoherent plans like giant psychic squid. It made sense in the context of the book, but might have felt out of place in the movie - I can see why it was left out.
I found it genuinely thought provoking at the end. Unfortunately, I cannot quantify it here without a massive spoiler which people might be tempted to read before they see the film.
So if you wish to know what I mean, and have seen the film, PM me!
The squid was something I thought was just plain dumb in the comic. I'm glad they changed that part they way they did, if anything so a non-comic-nerd audience could get it. I hate it when they normally change big things in movie versions, but in this case it was a good idea.
I'm also glad the whole pirate comic book thing was left out of the movie too. never understood why that needed to be in the comic other than as a space filler, kind of like the songs and poems on every other page in lord of the rings... but then I heard there's some kind of dvd you can get with the pirate comic done as a cartoon all on it's own. I'm sure there will be a 15 disc super duper blu-wiener-ray edition that will have every little thing included.
namegoeshere wrote:The Graphic novel is overrated - some super big fans of it, drown out so many nonplussed (I'm nonplussed). Rorsch is a great character, if it was just hte Rorsch comic I would have loved it - the rest just so-so
You may not be judging it from the perspective of the times when it was released in 1986-7. At that time it was quite a revolution in superhero comics, along with Dark Knight Returns released about the same time. These have been followed by various revisions of the genre so that they do not seem so ground-breaking now as they were.
Necros wrote:I'm also glad the whole pirate comic book thing was left out of the movie too. never understood why that needed to be in the comic other than as a space filler, kind of like the songs and poems on every other page in lord of the rings... but then I heard there's some kind of dvd you can get with the pirate comic done as a cartoon all on it's own. I'm sure there will be a 15 disc super duper blu-wiener-ray edition that will have every little thing included.
Snyder has already said that there will be a directors cut that is about an hour longer. I'm sure the CE will include the Tales of the Black Freighter cartoon (I think it was said it is integrated back into the film in the CE) as well as the hour special Behind the Mask (based on the book of course) that is a fake documentary from the 80's detailing the background in more detail.
As for why it is in the book in the first place is because it is a parallel for Viedt and his journey. It isn't just some poetic flourish.
Kilkrazy wrote:You may not be judging it from the perspective of the times when it was released in 1986-7. At that time it was quite a revolution in superhero comics, along with Dark Knight Returns released about the same time. These have been followed by various revisions of the genre so that they do not seem so ground-breaking now as they were.
Quoted for truth. This can NOT be overstated; the shame is that it took 20+ years to make the movie; if this had come out in 1987 it would be every bit as groundbreaking as the comic (can I say graphic novel without sounding like a fanboy?), but in 2009 anti-heroes have been done to death and without historic context it's "just another" grim-and-gritty hero movie.
Viperion wrote:
Quoted for truth. This can NOT be overstated; the shame is that it took 20+ years to make the movie; if this had come out in 1987 it would be every bit as groundbreaking as the comic (can I say graphic novel without sounding like a fanboy?), but in 2009 anti-heroes have been done to death and without historic context it's "just another" grim-and-gritty hero movie.
Viperion
To an extent I agree. One criticism I've heard of the film is that the story is no longer politically relevant seeing as the cold war and hence threat of nuclear annihilation ended decades ago.
Personally I don't see how that that relevant to whether the film is good or not. Otherwise why bother making any period piece? But it is true that the impact would have been that much more powerful during the cold war. So should Snyder have updated the film to make it all bout the war on terror instead? Hell no says I!
Destrado wrote:Went to see the movie. I loved it. Especially because everyone in the movie was expecting a superhero movie like spiderman. Other than some different twists, I liked most of it because it was faithful to the graphic novel.
This is a point that has struck me with this film, as I said I haven't read the comics, yet I have read alot online, and seen various threads about it.
So I have to ask, was this film advertised poorly, or worse advertised in a way to make folks think they where going to see a 'Spiderman' type film.
I say this as after watching two 'Watchmen' specials, one on Sky, the other on film 4 neither programme made any serious note of how dark the films where, or showed any clips that would give the 'average' film goer any warning of what they where walking into. Almost in effect setting up an ambush. Thus perhaps the reason that father turned up with a group of ten year olds.
Same goes with the main adverts.
I mean now I have a strong idea of the story, the interview with the actor playing the 'Comedian' saying how he likes and empthizes with his character, is to be frank a little worrying. Considering what a dark and nasty piece of work that character actually is.
Just found it odd after all the conviction Synder had keeping the film faithful, they couldn't be honest talking about it, other than occasional quips about 'oh its really faithful to the comic' which generally helps no one out there in the general public who haven't picked up a Batman or X-man comic, never mind the Watchmen.
It is rated R. I would hope that parents would question why it is and make an informed decision on whether their kids should go. But, I know that isn't always the case. We stopped reading my 3-year old Peter Rabbit after she asked if the farmer was trying to kill the bunny.
But, I do agree. It was not marketed as an R-rated superhero movie. It was marketed as a superhero movie.
It's rated R. If you want your kid to see a R-rated movie, you should check out what the movie is about. Period.
I'm not saying that the rating board should have the last word, but damn, parents should!
Well in the UK you can't get a kid into anything over a 12 so thats not really an issue here.
It also doesn't answer the query I was putting up, which was the advertising poorly done. Thr rating isn't the issue, some adults won't even tend to notice that when it comes out, just walk through the doors, it not like I'm going to be asked ID at the door.
The thing I was referring to was how it was advertised on the main mediums for new releases like it was a Spiderman film.
SAW and so forth, the darker splatter fest movies and films with dark tones don't advertise with a big sit down special with the cast telling you how great their characters are.
Watchmen in the UK at least did, which is why I am asking was that wrong?
edit - I missed your post dietrich, 'Red' distracted me.. apologies, this was a reponse to Anung.
Although aye, that was my point in essence, it was advertised as a Superhero film, not as a 'R' rated one.
Was editing my post as you posted. I'm blind this evening it seems, or its because I'm slipping on and off Dakka on the sly at work so not checking the thread properly.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Well in the UK you can't get a kid into anything over a 12 so thats not really an issue here.
It also doesn't answer the query I was putting up, which was the advertising poorly done. Thr rating isn't the issue, some adults won't even tend to notice that when it comes out, just walk through the doors, it not like I'm going to be asked ID at the door.
My friends and I got carded, and we're OBVIOUSLY well over 18.
I haven't been carded in years, although I am 35, if you're under 25, then you aren't obviously over 18, if you are, then all I can say is over-zealous staff?
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:
Although aye, that was my point in essence, it was advertised as a Superhero film, not as a 'R' rated one.
I disagree that it was marketed as a superhero movie. There were "heroics" in the trailer, but there was also the Comedian lighting a cigar with a flamethrower then setting an unarmed Vietcong on fire as well as Dr. Manhattan exploding another Vietcong. And it was heavily advertised that it was directed by "Zach Snyder, the director of 300" a movie well known for being incredibly violent.
Add that to it's R rating and it doesn't take a genius to put 2 and 2 together.
To say that people were somehow mislead to think that it was a "superhero movie" a la Spiderman doesn't pass the smell test. People are dumb and will take a 12 year old to see the Watchmen but whatever happened to accountability and blaming the parents bringing the kids and not the movie?
Actually, I've seen movie previews and didn't see the VC stuff. Had I not read reviews I would have been in for a severe surprise and would have likely walked out. Plus the costumes look stupid like Batman's Riddler stupid so would not have caught the coming gorefest.
I'd also stress that my view mainly comes from the 'Watchmen Specials' I've mentioned. These where in essence a sit down with cast and crew, chatting on how awesome the movie was, the clips shown where not that dark in my opinion. It seemed to concentrate on how awesome this film is and these characters are interesting to play. The problem with the specials where the seemed filmed in a way so they could be shown at anytime of the day, as they didn't to concentrate on any of the darker elements of the story.
Clips included Silent Spectre jumping into the burning building to save the people inside, Comedian doing his 'save them from their selves' line, the Minuteman photo bit, and so on, the worst clip shown was a molatov thrown at Nite owls ship. No fighting of note.
In fact by the end of the special, and before I went and looked into the material more, I would have thought 'Comedian' was a loveable rogue type, a sorta cross between Gambit and Nick Fury. Which he obviously isn't.
Regarding the trailer, it also moves so fast I didn't even pick up on the flamer thrower bit, and the Manhatten exploding Vietcong bit came across as a bit cartoony due to the blue aura.
Frazzled wrote:You underestimate the power of DUMB Ozy.
Actually, I've seen movie previews and didn't see the VC stuff. Had I not read reviews I would have been in for a severe surprise and would have likely walked out. Plus the costumes look stupid like Batman's Riddler stupid so would not have caught the coming gorefest.
Did you see 300?
And I wouldn't say the Watchmen is a gorefest, though there are a few moments when the whole audience gasped. My wife walked out of Sin City because of the violence but she thoroughly enjoyed The Watchmen.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:And thus we have the rather glorious morale standpoint debate, the main reason I really enjoyed Watchmen. It's all shades of Grey gentlemen!
SPOILER
Spoiler:
This is why Rorschach has to die; he is an absolutist and there is no room for absolutists in a morally ambiguous world.
Necros wrote:I'm also glad the whole pirate comic book thing was left out of the movie too. never understood why that needed to be in the comic other than as a space filler, kind of like the songs and poems on every other page in lord of the rings... but then I heard there's some kind of dvd you can get with the pirate comic done as a cartoon all on it's own. I'm sure there will be a 15 disc super duper blu-wiener-ray edition that will have every little thing included.
Spoiler warning...
The pirate story mirrored the moral journey of the masks. In obsessing over evil and committing their lives to fighting it, they left themselves vulnerable to being lost in the cause, losing perspective and becoming just as evil as the enemy they fought. It also casts doubt on the ending, because in the end the town wasn’t under threat by the pirates, and the people the castaway killed were needless. Now consider Ozzy’s plan… was is the masterstroke of the world’s smartest man, or was it the insane conclusion of a man who’d been through the same journey into madness as the castaway?
Without the Black Freighter narrative, it’s just a comic book.
Viperion wrote:Quoted for truth. This can NOT be overstated; the shame is that it took 20+ years to make the movie; if this had come out in 1987 it would be every bit as groundbreaking as the comic (can I say graphic novel without sounding like a fanboy?), but in 2009 anti-heroes have been done to death and without historic context it's "just another" grim-and-gritty hero movie.
Viperion
I think the comic book has a lot of merit beyond being one of the earlier gritty comics. There's a depth to the story you just don't see anywhere else.
Another point about the Black Freighter is that if Superheroes existed in the real world (sorta the premise of Watchmen) then they wouldn't be popular at all, so comics would have to be about something else.
I loved those bits in the comics, with the newsvendor gabbing on and on. Brilliant stuff.
Frazzled wrote:You underestimate the power of DUMB Ozy.
Actually, I've seen movie previews and didn't see the VC stuff. Had I not read reviews I would have been in for a severe surprise and would have likely walked out. Plus the costumes look stupid like Batman's Riddler stupid so would not have caught the coming gorefest.
Did you see 300?
And I wouldn't say the Watchmen is a gorefest, though there are a few moments when the whole audience gasped. My wife walked out of Sin City because of the violence but she thoroughly enjoyed The Watchmen.
1. I own that puppy. As mentioned great movie to watch whilst painting or other turn brain off activity.
2. Unless you've researched it I would not have known he was directing.
You're thinking people put that much effort into movies
From the trailers I saw
*superheroes
*bad guys in masks ala campy batman
*both of them in really bad outfits
My initial impression was "B level superhero movie." Not "movie attempting to be deep with rape scenes and mutilations."
The only reason I learned more was after The Spirit fiasco I swore off comic book films, yet She Who Must Be Obeyed was interested, so I decided to check it out.
1. I own that puppy. As mentioned great movie to watch whilst painting or other turn brain off activity.
2. Unless you've researched it I would not have known he was directing.
You're thinking people put that much effort into movies
From the trailers I saw
*superheroes
*bad guys in masks ala campy batman
*both of them in really bad outfits
My initial impression was "B level superhero movie." Not "movie attempting to be deep with rape scenes and mutilations."
The only reason I learned more was after The Spirit fiasco I swore off comic book films, yet She Who Must Be Obeyed was interested, so I decided to check it out.
1. If you saw 300 then the violence in the Watchman won't faze you. 300 is much more graphically violent.
2. No research needed. It was in the freakin trailer! Again, the wife who never saw 300 knew it was the same guy.
I don't think it's too much effort to actually watch the trailer. I'm sorry that people missed ALL of this while watching the trailer but ignorance is no reason to condemn a movie for a false appeal to young kids. If people miss the R rating, miss the director as one known for a very violent movie, miss the the violence in the trailer, and miss the hype about the graphic novel and what it was about, I'm not gonna have much sympathy when they get shocked by the movie.
EDIT: Just so we're clear, there is no actual rape scene in the movie. There is attempted rape, but it is interrupted. That's another thing the nut-job reviewer got wrong. Silk Spectre sleeps with the Comedian despite the attempted rape and the daughter is the result of that.
1. If you saw 300 then the violence in the Watchman won't faze you. 300 is much more graphically violent.
Gotcha. Several of the reviewers thought it was more but I’ll take your word on that.
2. No research needed. It was in the freakin trailer! Again, the wife who never saw 300 knew it was the same guy.
I didn’t see it, or let me rephrase I don’t know who the director of 300 was.
I don't think it's too much effort to actually watch the trailer. I'm sorry that people missed ALL of this while watching the trailer but ignorance is no reason to condemn a movie for a false appeal to young kids. If people miss the R rating, miss the director as one known for a very violent movie, miss the the violence in the trailer, and miss the hype about the graphic novel and what it was about, I'm not gonna have much sympathy when they get shocked by the movie.
1. I have been careful in not condemning the movie. I have stated its not my personal cup of tea as I need a non-historical buzzkill film like I need a hole in the head right now, can’t get past the costumes, and am pretty burned out on comic book movies.
2. The trailer I saw (mind you only saw one) had a bit from ONE fight scene.
3. I’d never heard of Watchmen before the movie, or the “buzz.” With few exceptions I don’t listen to ‘buzz,’ or read about it. Often, when I do I get hammered. Cold Mountain, Slumdog, Phantom Menace.
4. Lots of people go to movies based on the trailer alone (I am eagerly awaiting Aliens vs. Monsters). If we have to do indepth research on a film to avoid a major pitfall A) it obviates the benefit of seeing the film; B) it becomes freakin work; C) something’s wrong because the trailer is misleading.
Silk Spectre sleeps with the Comedian despite the attempted rape and the daughter is the result of that.
OTT but you just lost your female audience. That’s non-realistic to a “come on that’s bs” level.
Edit:
This is the trailer I saw.
-You are right it does say director of 300.
-nothing there to lead me to think this would be a hard movie if I didn't see the R. It looks like every other "edgy" comic book promo I've seen.
http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1808406490/video/10658091 -Having said that-I always check out the ratings on a movie I'm letting the kids see. You are completely correct in that its the obligation of the parent/guardian in that regard.
Silk Spectre sleeps with the Comedian despite the attempted rape and the daughter is the result of that.
OTT but you just lost your female audience. That’s non-realistic to a “come on that’s bs” level.
I dunno. There's a lot of Springer stuff that happens IRL...
Only in freakshows. In the real world, normal non-mouthbreathing weirdo 15 year old boy fantasies trailer park world, women don't do that. But thats not the target audience is it?
Silk Spectre sleeps with the Comedian despite the attempted rape and the daughter is the result of that.
OTT but you just lost your female audience. That’s non-realistic to a “come on that’s bs” level.
What is important is that you don't understand the context or the amount of time that had passed between events. Just go by one sentence out of context of an entire story and judge it. It is for the best.
That the comic's treatment of women is not realistic? I don't know. Is that the point?
What is important is that you don't understand the context or the amount of time that had passed between events. Just go by one sentence out of context of an entire story and judge it. It is for the best.
Meh I stand by my statement. You lose your female audience when you try to say a woman who is almost raped by a man falls for him. Doesn't this movie also have the only female lead banging two different other characters in this?
Frazzled wrote:That the comic's treatment of women is not realistic? I don't know. Is that the point?
Yes, becuase when I see Wonder Woman I think "now there is a realistic portrayal of women". I think it is also good that we pick one character and assume she represents all women in the movie as well as all women in general.
In other news, Rhianna gets back with Chris Brown.
The movie (and the comic) makes the event out to be a tragedy in every way for Silk Spectre, and in some ways for the Comedian. As opposed to a mouthbreathing 15 year old fantasy.
As for losing the female audience - I'm pretty sure the dudes in costumes and the comic book part does that pretty well by itself. The theater satruday night was 90% male except for my wife (who loves the comic as well so I had to wait to see it with her instead of opening night)
I dunno about you, but I know of several "relationships" where one partner sticks around with an abusive spouse or SO for a variety of reasons - low self esteem, feeling trapped, or just because they don't care. Silk Spectre Numbero Uno came off in the book like someone caught up in their own public image and just floated along.
And as for people saying that the true nature of the film is uncertain without "research" makes it sound like you need to do an essay on the film before knowing how violent and rated R it is. I guess this isn't the norm for most people, but I at least poke around on IMDB.com for a brief overview of the film before I throw down $8-10 on a ticket. Do people just kinda wander into the theatre at about 7 or 9pm and pick a movie based on the title and/or movie poster?
EDIT: The above paragraph is not meant to be sarcastic, I'm honestly curious if this is the way most people pick what movie to see.
C) something’s wrong because the trailer is misleading.
That's the one reasons why I didn't like Pan's Labyrinth.
yea I hated that. The gross factor really detracted from what could have been a good movie.
In other news, Rhianna gets back with Chris Brown.
Crap, you’re right. I don’t hang out with women like that, always rejected women friends who mildly acted like that. Having said that we don’t watch movies like that either…
As for losing the female audience - I'm pretty sure the dudes in costumes and the comic book part does that pretty well by itself. The theater satruday night was 90% male except for my wife (who loves the comic as well so I had to wait to see it with her instead of opening night)
Point made again.
And as for people saying that the true nature of the film is uncertain without "research" makes it sound like you need to do an essay on the film before knowing how violent and rated R it is. I guess this isn't the norm for most people, but I at least poke around on IMDB.com for a brief overview of the film before I throw down $8-10 on a ticket. Do people just kinda wander into the theatre at about 7 or 9pm and pick a movie based on the title and/or movie poster?
Actually I intentionally don’t much of the time. It’s the same reason “spoilers” ahead warnings are out. If something looks interesting I don’t want to know whats going to happen. It ruins much of the film.
$8 for a ticket? Try $20 for two plus $30-$50 in munchies and booze.
Frazzled wrote:
Meh I stand by my statement. You lose your female audience when you try to say a woman who is almost raped by a man falls for him. Doesn't this movie also have the only female lead banging two different other characters in this?
lambadomy wrote:In other news, Rhianna gets back with Chris Brown.
Exactly. I also think you underestimate the intelligence of the female audience when you make statements like that.
Plus, they do touch on that it takes a certain kind of warped personality to become a costumed hero to start with.
I know we're not going to convince you to see this movie, but please don't say it's "another comic book movie". I wouldn't call the Dark Knight just another comic book movie either.
Ozymandias wrote:
Exactly. I also think you underestimate the intelligence of the female audience when you make statements like that.
Actually I think my point that women are intelligent, generally supports my side. You've got to be twitchy to pull a Rihanna. The uproar over that supports my statement.
I know we're not going to convince you to see this movie, but please don't say it's "another comic book movie". I wouldn't call the Dark Knight just another comic book movie either.
I never did. I said the preview looked like most other edgy comic book previews I had seen.
OT but Dark Knight was just ok for me. I liked the joker played Charles Manson style, but it was too convoluted (the whole Hong kong side story detracted). What I really liked about that movie, and its predecessor was
1. Michael Caine. he can't make a bad movie.
2. the soudntrack. The Soundtrack comes at me in waves, swelling and receding. Since Zantar master of the pit has gone off the deep end in percussion and composition I have an even greater appreciation. Wow now I know a present I want for the birthday (other than jumping out of an airplane).
I will say that the movie kind of screws up the relationship between Laurie and Dr. Manhattan and then Laurie and Nite Owl, but not too badly (the order of events is slightly off if I remember correctly, making Laurie look a little worse) but stilll...
So a woman leaves (or is left by) the man she used to love but who has grown apart (in an extreme way too), and then sleeps with someone else...and that's unrealistic? Really? Relationships don't end? People don't start new ones?
As for Silk Spectre I (Sally) and the comedian, he does try to rape her. But this event does not end their professional relationship, partly because she is kind of obsessed with being a costumed hero and well, spending time with the other costume heros kind of goes with that territory. So they end up together once 9 years later...9 years! People change, people get over things, and well, people make mistakes. Movies (and most stories) don't tend to be about common events...otherwise they'd be boring. But being uncommon does not make something impossible or completely ridiculous/wrong.
I do have a friend who has never read the watchmen and won't because she knows about the rape scene. That's fine. I don't care if someone reads it or watches it or not. But I also know plenty of women who love the comic and don't seem to think the events are a big deal - just interesting, and sad.
As for losing the female audience - maybe, maybe not, as I said I think the "its a comic book" part of it makes it lose a lot more women than the content would. I'm pretty sure it will still end up making money, and I'm not really convinced they'd have made more had they changed/removed that subplot.
I normally don't nitpick, but I was just talking about ticket prices, which at 8 to 10 bucks around her in Salt Lake City, would be $16-20 like you mentioned. $30-50 on munchies? While it must be nice to be able to buy booze at the move theatre, it is not so in Utah, and at that price, I'd rather wear my jacket and sneak stuff in.
I know a few females, not comic types, that read the book (and one so far that has seen the movie) and one of the reasons they enjoyed it was because the female characters are flawed and three dimensional not busty idealized sex fantasies.
I just thought I'd add here, first none of what happens in Watchmen bothers me, I'll watch it but only when it comes on Sky, no rush to see in the cinema.
My point I was raising on the previous page was just from my observations, not because I'm running around the room brandishing a Daily Mail and being horrified there is a 'attempted rape' scene, in fact I want to see it to discover the context.
However, Frazzled has a point here, my wife took an instant dislike to the film when it sounds like its giving the 'Attempted rape' a thumbs up because as she wonderfully put it.
'Awwww he tried to rape her, but its okay they made up and had a baby so its alright now. What a pathetic woman and typically written to be so by a man'
She also thinks Rhianna is an idiot for going back to Brown, and points to Whitney Housten as an example of a similar thing. She just hopes Rhianna doesn't end up on crack before she realises what a jerk her so called boyfriend is.
So aye, I think a lot of females watching this film will be, wtf when they see that plot piece. Unless its handled bloody well, hence why I want to see it.
I normally don't nitpick, but I was just talking about ticket prices, which at 8 to 10 bucks around her in Salt Lake City, would be $16-20 like you mentioned. $30-50 on munchies? While it must be nice to be able to buy booze at the move theatre, it is not so in Utah, and at that price, I'd rather wear my jacket and sneak stuff in.
OT but thats food too. Its a dinner theater. They show bad previews, and parts from bad movies in the same genre prior to the movie. For Walk the Line they had the lounge act where William Shatner was singing horrible songs and smoking cigs. Its kind of a cultie place.
Frazzled wrote:Yet they wear stereotypical female comic book outfits?
Proving once again you have never read the book or seen the movie. If you are3 going to continually complain about things you have no context for at least read the book instead of having us explain why you are wrong every 3 posts.
In this instance you remind me of my little brother who thinks women think alike and follow some formula. "This is how women feel about 'x'". Or I suppose Cosmo where a woman tells other women what men want.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:However, Frazzled has a point here, my wife took an instant dislike to the film when it sounds like its giving the 'Attempted rape' a thumbs up because as she wonderfully put it.
Do she/you always leap to early conclusions based on paltry or false information or is it just this time?
Do you always reply with sarcastic nonsense and flippantly insult people? Oh wait thats an affirmative.
Remember insulting a man's wife is dangerous thing. Mind Rule #1 Ahtman.
I said I had never read, nor desire to read it. I am not interested in comic books. I have no problem with other people doing so, but thats not my thing.
I said was not going to see the film as it wasn't my cup of tea like three times already.
I note you DIDN"T RESPOND TO THE QUESTION THOUGH.
If its so deep blah blah why does she still wear the stereotypical pseudo stripper superheroine costume?
Hey I'm just passing on her view, she won't join any more 40K forums, but this isn't a case of me = she.
Hell If you want to check if shes real or not just go look on heresy online where shes Lvix, and I'm Druchii in Space, you can see by the writing styles we are different people.
As I said I want to see the contex, and I can only make my conclusions on what info I have, good or bad. She being the woman out of the two of us seemed a good example of a womans reaction to that plot line.
Returning to my previous point however, the mis-advertising thing did get me interested enough so I've asked some of my female co-workers yesterday and today who've seen the ad what they thought they would be going to watch if they went to see it. They all said either a Spiderman or batman type movie (oh and when they say Batman they aren't talking about Bales version,) thats six woman aged 28 through to about 50.
Still makes me wonder if the studio where playing the average movie go-er with there advertsing.
My mom is a domestic violence counselor. There are thousands of women who, while otherwise intelligent, make really bad decisions about the men in their lives, repeatedly. I hear about a lot of her cases, and in each case my wife and I wonder why they're still there, and yet it keeps happening.
As for the Silk Specter II character sleeping with 2 different guys in the movie (and book), this too needs to be taken in context. She's at the point in her relationship with Dr. Manhattan where she's walking out on him, and the other guy happens to be there and pays the attention to her that Manhattan hasn't for a few years. Is it any wonder that she reacts to this? This is hardly unrealistic.
My wife, who has also read the comic, didn't immediately get lost by either of these things. To insinuate that you lose your female audience by including such themes is, in itself, insulting to females.
And, yes, the female characters wear stereotypically female superhero costumes. And the male characters, mostly, wear stereotypical male superhero costumes, and again, this is because the original book is an exploration into the hero genre. The costumes (And how they change between the original minutemen and the later watchmen) are as much a part of this as the story.
Frazzled, for someone who continues to claim that you have no interest in this movie, or comics in general, you keep coming back to rap on it. In the end, it's an ok movie adaptation of one of the most relevant pieces of literature of the twentieth century. It loses a lot of the deeper meaning in being adapted for the screen, but I think that happens when any great book is hollywooded. If it's not your thing, that's fine, but don't keep slamming it without taking the time to understand what it is.
C) something’s wrong because the trailer is misleading.
That's the one reasons why I didn't like Pan's Labyrinth.
yea I hated that. The gross factor really detracted from what could have been a good movie.
Don't want to derial the thread, but I have to mention this one more time. When I saw the Trailer for Pan's Labyrinth I was expecting a fantasy movie which in the ned only was about 1/3 of the entire movie. Which, to be honest, pissed me really off.
Frazzled wrote:Do you always reply with sarcastic nonsense and flippantly insult people?
Not always.
Frazzled wrote:Remember insulting a man's wife is dangerous thing. Mind Rule #1 Ahtman.
Thats right masta Fraz, those wimmen folks needs you to protect them from mild internet sarcasm. Lawdy lawdy dah wimmen folk are made of such gentle flowers. Thank goodness dey got a white knight that understands all dem in youz.
Asking someone if they and their wife are prone to casually dismissing things on things with barely anecdotal evidence isn't really an insult. It could be considered condescending though.
Frazzled wrote:I said I had never read, nor desire to read it. I am not interested in comic books. I have no problem with other people doing so, but thats not my thing.
Then don't read it or see the movie but don't refuse to learn anything about and insult it/prejudge it. You can't do both. Either read/see it and make a judgement or don't and stop trying to find reasons why it is distasteful w/o knowing what you are talking about.
Frazzled wrote:I note you DIDN"T RESPOND TO THE QUESTION THOUGH.
Of course not. You want to know more go to the library/book store. You are a broken record in this thread of criticism on something you fully admit you don't know. At this point it doesn't really matter if you get an answer or not.
Frazzled wrote:
If its so deep blah blah why does she still wear the stereotypical pseudo stripper superheroine costume?
Read the book. We aren't your Cliff Notes and our purpose isn't to justify your ignorance of the material all the time.
Your refusal to answer the question is interesting. You don't know do you?
I respect Ozzy's and redbeard's statements, but frankly you've consistently attacked those who have doubts about the film. You're way too wound up about this film. Dare I say...fan boy?
Frazzled wrote:
If its so deep blah blah why does she still wear the stereotypical pseudo stripper superheroine costume?
Ahtman's tone is bad but he makes a good point. You keep bringing things up that are explained by a thorough reading of the graphic novel. They wear stereotypical superhero costumes because they are superheros, that's how they are supposed to dress. This is a deconstruction of superhero stories and really a look at the characters and personality of people who would dress up in costumes and fight crime. It's the reason so much of the comic is dedicated to back story and told in flashbacks or "memoirs." Silk Spectre used her superhero costume to start a modeling/acting career. It's a lot different than a one-dimensional Wonder Woman outfit and story.
Seriously, go buy a copy or borrow it from the library or something instead of making uninformed opinions based on other peoples uninformed opinions.
Frazzled wrote:Your refusal to answer the question is interesting. You don't know do you?
OMG you are like so clever you almost got me.
Frazzled wrote:I respect Ozzy's and redbeard's statements, but frankly you've consistently attacked those who have doubts about the film.
You'd make a great political pundit like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbuagh, or Michael Moore. Disagreeing with you and refusing to put up with your shenanigans isn't an attack. They haven't said anything really any different then I have, you just don't like my tone and I couldn't care less.
On the women issue: Two of my female friends who read the graphic novel, and aren't really into comics, said they weren't happy with Silk Spectre as she was written. I can see where they're coming from, but at the same time, I don't think the male characters were all flawless or heroic either- far from it.
Fraz: From my experiences of you, I reckon you might not enjoy watchmen, especially if you have anything but a completely open mind going in. Might be a waste of your money for a film that would just annoy you. 12 people walked out when I was watching it, and that's very rare. (Up until that film I'd only ever seen 2 or 3 walk outs)
I did enjoy it a lot though, and I think the comic is well worth reading.
Like others have said, it’s a deconstruction of comic books. As such, it takes the tropes of the genre, superheroes and supervillains in outlandish costumes, crime and punishment, ludicrous bases in exotic locations, fantastical powers… and places them in a more realistic setting, and then examines how those tropes would work in that new context.
So, they wear superhero costumes. And it examines exactly how people wearing these costumes might really operate. So it looks at the highly sexual nature of dressing up in skin tight outfits. It examines the cult of celebrity.
The attempted rape looks at the trope of crime and punishment. In any other comic book, the rape would likely be dealt with someone swearing vengeance, a climactic battle and the Comedian falling off a cliff onto some spikes, or something. All very cathartic and ridiculous. But in Watchmen, they instead compromise, let the Comedian get away with what he did. Years later, the Silk Spectre, who is pretty damn messed up, sleeps with her attempted rapist. Her daughter finds this all awful, and reacts like other people are reacting when they hear this.
But that’s the point. Life is full of decisions, we make ours and move on. The black and white morality of traditional comic books isn’t just simplistic, but absolutely impossible to apply to the real world.
Because it’s a really interesting book with a lot of interesting levels to it. Read the comic, watch the movie, or don’t, I don’t really care. But just reading off-hand comments, or hearing that there’s an attempted rape in the film that doesn’t end with a nice piece of revenge porn, and deciding the film must be terrible or obviously written by an ignorant man… that’s ridiculous.
Perhaps not as ridiculous as walking out on a movie 15 minutes in because a film called Slumdog Millionaire showed people living in slums.
One thing to point out is that the second Silk Spectre even comments on her outfit as being ridiculous, and how she only wore it because her mother made her. In fact, pages of text are dedicated, in character, to heroes attempting to explain why they would even consider wearing such ludicrous costumes in the first place. So, the reason the book is deep isn't because the costumes are realistic, but rather because the characters have the same qualms about it as we do.
The point of watchmen is that Superheroes aren't actually better people, just people that for whatever reason dedicate themselves to vigilantism while costumed. It's an insane pasttime, and the book and movie both explore what makes these people tick, and how they're all incredibly flawed and broken.
In fact, I think the extreme gore and violence of the movie had the same point as well: kicking bad guys and beating them has ramifications, something that a lot of superhero comics and movies tend to gloss over.
to tie these two points together, there is a scene in which two characters talk about a criminal that pretended to be a super villian because he enjoyed being beaten up, and the two discuss how they were annoyed by this guy. One asks whatever happened to him, and the response is that he tried his shtick on Rorschach, who promptly threw him down an elevator shaft. They then both laugh. At another human beings murder (or attempted murder). They realize they shouldn't laugh, but still do. That's the scene where everybody falls in love with the comic, either because Rorschach is so awesome, or because they realize that they're not in a sanitized Justice League knock off.
As for the Marketing, I think it the trailers and posters sold the "superhero" part pretty heavily, and I think a casual observer would think it's just another comic book adaptation. Now, it's hard to distill "a fascinating deconstruction of the myth of superheros in the context of cold war era America" into a tagline, but I can see how folks would be... confused. That said, the MPAA now includes not only ratings, but an explanation of what the ratings mean. If "Strong graphic violence, nudity, sexuality, and language" don't' tip you off, well, than I'm not sure what else they can do in Green Screen trailers.
Polonius wrote: If "Strong graphic violence, nudity, sexuality, and language" don't' tip you off, well, than I'm not sure what else they can do in Green Screen trailers.
You know I never really paid that much attention to the "fine print" on those green screen trailers. Usually just to whether it was R,PG-13 or PG. But Watchmen has changed that for me.
THing is, I feel the gore is central to the theme of deconstructing the Superhero Mythos.
Spoiler:
Particularly the alley fight. They go from a couple of friends enjoying a late night stroll, and instantly snap into violent retribution when faced with an attempted mugging.
Consider X-Men 2, and the main reason I loved that film. The violence. Whilst not exactly explicit and goresoaked, when Wolverine starts laying into the Troops attacking the mansion, I was heartened that his claws came into play, and the fact that he was doing real damage.
Same with Watchmen. They aren't already dead, because they are extremely vicious fighters. Rather than fighting to knock out, they are quite happy to shatter bones, break necks, snap ribs etc to put the bad guy down. And who is to say whether or not the bad guys didn't deserve it? Is it any less than they were planning? Probably not. They use knives and guns to intimidate people, whereas generally the Watchmen stick to fists and feet (not to mention the occasional forehead) to get things done. Thus, in context, the Watchmen are being pretty well constrained, most of the time.
So compound fractures are seen, rather than implied. So what? It is important to the theme. Like Ichi The Killer (an interesting foray into Sado Masochism for those who haven't seen it) in the context of the film, it is right that we see this. I'm bored to tears of the effects of having the crap kicked out of you not shown!
Then we have The Comedian. It seems he wasn't that pleasent a guy to begin with, but after Vietnam, he is markedly changed by his experience. And I think that echoes well with the Vietnam Veterans. They were over there doing their job. They were told that their actions were in defence of Global Democracy. And when they returned, it was to an ungrateful voice. Remember, a lot of Soldiers in Vietnam were drafted (Another word for Conscripts) into the army. They were told to fight, and they did. They were told to die. And they did. The Political schemings that lead to the war were not their own. You can no more blame a drafted soldier for his part than you can blame the gun that shot someone. They were wielded by another. Their force was directed for them.
And so, when the Comedian comes back from Vietnam, where he was allowed to get away with literal murder, seemingly snapped his tenuous grasp on sanity. The whole scene with Night Owl (no, I will not spell it that ridiculous way!) shows that. He has risked his neck time and again to make the world safer. Sure, his personal motivations are questionable at best, but his actions meant dangerous criminals were now off the streets, and the efforts are met with scorn and criticism.
I don't know if it makes it into the movie, but in the comic, Dr. Manhattan comments that Vietnam was the perfect place for the Comedian. He was 'the most amoral person that I've ever met' and Vietnam was all about brutality and killing.
The rub is, the 'heroes' are almost as bad as the villians. They're 'heroes' in the 'defend the civilians' manner, not in the 'great role-model' manner.
I haven't seen the movie, but I think the excerpts from the Hollis Mason/Nite Owl I book really added a depth to the story that I don't see how they can capture in a film. He realizes that they're all a little nutty. Look at the Minutemen:
Dollar Bill - was hired by a bank to have a 'superhero to protect your money'. Killed by a robber when his cape was caught in the revolving door.
Mothman - in an insane asylum
Hooded Justice - just disappeared. Possibly an East German bodybuilder/wrestler. A body washes up in Boston with a single gunshot to the head, was probably the wrestler. Rumored to have been killed by his Soviet handlers.
I forget the other woman in the Minutemen, but she was thrown out after it was revealed she was a lesbian. Her and her lover were murdered by a former foe.
Even Captain Metropolis was a bit of a caricature at the founding of the Crimebusters. He was very much the Nixon-conservative worried about subversives at the universities, drugs, and even groups like the Black Panthers.
If nothing else dietrich you should see the beginning of the movie. Oh, and the chick you are thinking of I believe is Silhouette.
One nitpick for sure was the lack of smoking. It was in the book and in 1985 (and obliviously earlier) there was a lot more smoking. It also lead to the great line where Dan asks Laurie "I thought you quit" and she responds "No one ever quits, there are just longer periods between relapses". Obliviously Moore is referring to more than just smoking here, or at least I always thought so.
I want to see the film, just don't know when it'll happen between work, kids, and prep for Adepticon. Hey, I can paint my 1,000 pt army in 3 weeks when it's only take two months to get it built, and it's not even done yet. Sure, that could happen.......
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:I haven't been carded in years, although I am 35, if you're under 25, then you aren't obviously over 18, if you are, then all I can say is over-zealous staff?
I'm 33, my other friend is 35, and the other is 39.
Watching this movie was like watching a cute hipster chick. Sure she's cute and she does it all for "irony" and "sarcasm" and there's a "deeper level" to all that fashion, but eh. For pretty much for all the reasons seb and pol go into. All the "heh look at what comic books show yeah this is the REAL gritty stuff" and these are how REAL superheroes would act it's kinda like Batman and how he's messed up in the head and the world is a dark place. It insists on itself being "deep." But like the cute hipster chick there's still fight scenes, hot chicks, and explosions.
I was disappointed in the small amount of blue dilz though. Dr. Manhattan, why, as the greatest man, did you not show off the part of a man we pride ourselves on the most? Oh wait it's because he's disconnected with humanity and doesn't care for its symbols so why would he care about a giant phallus and man the reasons are so obvious.
I think when you can turn someone inside out, the manly benchmark of 'Whose got the biggest willy' rapidly becomes a moot point.
I've been known, during particularly pointless posturing in the pub, to just stand up, drop trou, and declare that, one way or the other, the matter is closed. That is effective in it's own way.
But to just wander around with it on show? Does it matter if you have the biggest? You have risen above such petty matters.
Lordhat wrote: I'm 33, my other friend is 35, and the other is 39.
Damn that is over-zealous, kinda like when that seventy year old got ID checked for booze in the UK a while back.. kinda. Don't some people have eyes, or where you all dressed as Watchmen.
As to the story, aye I still want to see this film, alot of my discussion here was based on the advertising not on if the movie is bad or good. Comedian still sounds like a arsh-hat, but I've liked characters in other stuff that is worse and if he has Charisma which it sounds like he does, it is surprising what folks can get away with.
The only thing I will add before I'm done is I've seen a few voices raise the 'this is what superheroes would be like' thing. To me thats pretty much rubbish, these are anti-heroes, I am sure they will be interesting to watch, But the suggestion that if anyone got superpowers he would have to be dark is laughable.
Look at police officers and firemen for examples, these are Human beings willing to risk their necks for little reward and although you get darker ones of them on occasion, many do it without complaint and for society. To a lesser degree some of these 'by night heroes' that go about America atm the moment are other good examples. (Can't remember any of their names, but theres a guy in Phoenix that wears bodyarmour, and a girl in New York who looks out for guys taking advantage of drunk girls.)
In my view as with most things it would be down to the individual, but my reckoning is you are just as likely to get a Spiderman type as you are a Comedian type.
Other than that point I'll be planning to watch this at some point, not sure if I'll cough up for the DVD or catch it on Sky though.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:The only thing I will add before I'm done is I've seen a few voices raise the 'this is what superheroes would be like' thing. To me thats pretty much rubbish, these are anti-heroes, I am sure they will be interesting to watch, But the suggestion that if anyone got superpowers he would have to be dark is laughable.
You were doing so well then you forgot that you haven't read the book/seen the movie like you just stated. We've had to say this before but I guess we'll have to say it again: you can't pass judgement on something you readily admit to be uninformed about. You don't have enough information to form a valid opinion. If you did, you would already know what is wrong with your statement.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Look at police officers and firemen for examples, these are Human beings willing to risk their necks for little reward and although you get darker ones of them on occasion, many do it without complaint and for society.
I can't say as much about fireman as the studies I've seen are on police forces primarily so I am not talking about them.
1. They do complain, a lot.
2. Generally they aren't bastions of virtue that just want to help people. Some are, many are not.
3. By and large cops fit a certain profile across the board. It isn't like the military were you get a wide variety. Part of that profile isn't being a paragon of virtue.
4. For every occasional overly heroic act there are at least as many acts of corruption on equal scale. The reality is that most of the job is mundane. Parking tickets, complaining people, mounds of paperwork.
Cops aren't shiny badged heroes that do no wrong, they are human beings that put themselves into minor position of authority for a paycheck. Depending on your bent they are tool of a corrupt system used to protect the elite and their property from the masses. Civil policing is a far greyer area than you are admitting to and the subject of much discourse and debate.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:To a lesser degree some of these 'by night heroes' that go about America atm the moment are other good examples. (Can't remember any of their names, but theres a guy in Phoenix that wears bodyarmour, and a girl in New York who looks out for guys taking advantage of drunk girls.)
And how much have these people really changed? What kind of person are they? What really drives a guy to put on body armor night after night and skulk around looking for 'wrongdoing'. He sounds like a lawsuit and jail sentence just waiting around the corner. And in the end has crime really gone down because of this? Same as the chick who sits in bars night after night just hoping to find a predator. You don't have to dedicate your life to do the right thing. Anyone can call 911 or step up to if we see something funky going on. You'll still never stop all crime*, and especially not by becoming a criminal.
*
Spoiler:
Which is kind of the point that 'you know who' comes to realize and changes tactics
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:The only thing I will add before I'm done is I've seen a few voices raise the 'this is what superheroes would be like' thing. To me thats pretty much rubbish, these are anti-heroes, I am sure they will be interesting to watch, But the suggestion that if anyone got superpowers he would have to be dark is laughable.
Look at police officers and firemen for examples, these are Human beings willing to risk their necks for little reward and although you get darker ones of them on occasion, many do it without complaint and for society. To a lesser degree some of these 'by night heroes' that go about America atm the moment are other good examples. (Can't remember any of their names, but theres a guy in Phoenix that wears bodyarmour, and a girl in New York who looks out for guys taking advantage of drunk girls.)
In my view as with most things it would be down to the individual, but my reckoning is you are just as likely to get a Spiderman type as you are a Comedian type.
Other than that point I'll be planning to watch this at some point, not sure if I'll cough up for the DVD or catch it on Sky though.
Not really. First up, there’s only mask that actually has superpowers, the rest are all regular people. Second up, like Ahtman says it isn’t as if the police force is full of nothing but saints. It’s a big complicated world and the police force is full of all types.
And the biggest point is that the argument put forward in Watchmen is a lot more complicated that ‘superheroes would be grimdark’. Rather, it says superheroes would be human and would become superheroes for very human reasons. That might include sadists like the Comedian or lunatics like Rorschach, but it’ll also include a guy like Nite Owl who really did like the idea of rescuing people. Or someone like Silk Spectre, who became a superhero due to parental pressure. Ozymandias reason is the subjective, as despite a genuine interest in people and society, his decision to become a superhero likely had a lot to do with his overwhelming ego.
The thing is, Watchmen isn’t giving a simple answer for real life comic book heroes. It’s saying that if comic book heroes were to exist in the real world, they’d be as complicated and contradictory as the real world.
Ahtman wrote:
You were doing so well then you forgot that you haven't read the book/seen the movie like you just stated. We've had to say this before but I guess we'll have to say it again: you can't pass judgement on something you readily admit to be uninformed about. You don't have enough information to form a valid opinion. If you did, you would already know what is wrong with your statement.
I wasn't commenting on the book, as I said I was commenting on those who had said 'if there we real superheroes they'd be like the Watchmen.' They are anti-heroes, I get that and no I don't need to have read it or seen the film to have a opinion on it. This is 2009, anti-heroes are old news, why I said in an earlier post I didn't feel that impressed with the plot. Other comics have done stories better than this now. But aye, my whole comment was based on a reaction to that statement, nothing to do with the Watchmen, it is quite clearly written there.
Ahtman wrote:
I can't say as much about fireman as the studies I've seen are on police forces primarily so I am not talking about them.
1. They do complain, a lot.
2. Generally they aren't bastions of virtue that just want to help people. Some are, many are not.
3. By and large cops fit a certain profile across the board. It isn't like the military were you get a wide variety. Part of that profile isn't being a paragon of virtue.
4. For every occasional overly heroic act there are at least as many acts of corruption on equal scale. The reality is that most of the job is mundane. Parking tickets, complaining people, mounds of paperwork.
Cops aren't shiny badged heroes that do no wrong, they are human beings that put themselves into minor position of authority for a paycheck. Depending on your bent they are tool of a corrupt system used to protect the elite and their property from the masses. Civil policing is a far greyer area than you are admitting to and the subject of much discourse and debate.
I don't do studies, this was a comment from my personal experiences of knowing local police officers and fire servicemen. I'm sorry but studies can say what they want, I have talked and got to know folks in both services. I am a nights manager at a shop with an off licence, we deal with drunken issues thus we have a very close rapport with our local officers. Three also live in the village and use us as their main shop. Maybe in some places those comments are true, but not all, if you have read my post you'll notice I wasn't suggesting they'd all be good, I was countering the comment made by others earlier on in this thread that all Superheroes would be dark/anti-heroes. I full well know they're would be people like the Watchmen, but I was countering those making the suggestion this film 'is how it would really be' thus making the suggestion all supers would be like this.
I used Police officers because I know folks who do it to help society, they'd do it for free if it was practical, heck one of the community support officers here served in London as a Police Officer for 20yrs before he decided to retire. Moved up here to Suffolk and he made the call to help the community by becoming a support officer, thats the kind of people I'm referencing.
Ahtman wrote:
And how much have these people really changed? What kind of person are they? What really drives a guy to put on body armor night after night and skulk around looking for 'wrongdoing'. He sounds like a lawsuit and jail sentence just waiting around the corner. And in the end has crime really gone down because of this? Same as the chick who sits in bars night after night just hoping to find a predator. You don't have to dedicate your life to do the right thing. Anyone can call 911 or step up to if we see something funky going on. You'll still never stop all crime*, and especially not by becoming a criminal.
*
Spoiler:
Which is kind of the point that 'you know who' comes to realize and changes tactics
Well I agree I think both of them aren't going to get far, but my point is they try, and thats all I was commenting on, some folks would uphold virtue and the law.
All I was stating was some folks would be like the heroes in other comic books, obviously not all would.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:
In my view as with most things it would be down to the individual, but my reckoning is you are just as likely to get a Spiderman type as you are a Comedian type.
I'm confused - how, exactly, can you know that other comics have done what the watchmen does better than watchmen without having read it? No offense but it seems like a stretch to know something that well without reading it yourself. Yes, the anti-hero idea in comics has been done to death since watchmen, but pretty much never as well...most of the time it's done with none of the understanding or thought that watchmen puts into it. Declaring flat out that it's been surpassed multiple times when you've never read it is hard to justify.
I've read a lot of comics in the last 20 years and quite frankly Watchmen is still my favorite, for a lot of reasons. It's not just a story of anti-heroes.
As for "spiderman type" or "comedian type", as of 1985 "spiderman type" was a little too two dimensional to ever exist in the real world, imo. This is of course one of the points of "watchmen" the comic. But even if you don't believe that or agree, it is untrue that none of the characters or Heroes in Watchmen err on the side of "spiderman type". And pretty much none of the other characters are "Comedian type", they're all sorts of shades of grey and differences in between.
Really, is it that difficult to read a comic book before spouting off on what it's about or what is and isn't rubbish in the story based entirely on other people's comments on a message board?
Oh It might be mine as well, if you note I'm talking about the plot, not the comic. Its a little cliche now, but I'm sure reading the whole thing I'd have different view.
Will have to get a copy now I suppose to find out for myself.
Ok, I can accept that - but really, plot elements of Watchmen are supposed to be sort-of-cliche. You can't deconstruct comics without borrowing their tropes, and you can't turn them all on their head every time. I still love it because it's very different than other comics, even the ones that followed and tried a similar plot. I find most comics after the watchmen that tried to be edgy or real or whatever you want to say didn't really understand the purpose of it and suffer because of that. But I still like a lot of them...they're just not Watchmen.
Aye to be fair my views on the plot are based off a couple of plot synopsis reports off different sites. I wasn't planning to judge the full thing until I had seen it, as I noted a few times in here. I want to see this film and read the book now.
I think folks misunderstood my discussion mainly based on things being associated with the film/book, (the poor way it was advertised, and now the response to the 'supers would be like this' comments) as direct assaults on the comic/film. Which if you read what I'm posting its not at all.
lambadomy wrote:I'm confused - how, exactly, can you know that other comics have done what the watchmen does better than watchmen without having read it?
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:I don't do studies
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:I'm sorry but studies can say what they want,
Didn't you read the previous post? he doesn't need to 'read' or 'study' or 'read studies'. All the thinking and experts are for losers. He just knows because he knows and that is good enough. What has learning and studying ever done for anyone?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I think when you can turn someone inside out, the manly benchmark of 'Whose got the biggest willy' rapidly becomes a moot point.
I've been known, during particularly pointless posturing in the pub, to just stand up, drop trou, and declare that, one way or the other, the matter is closed. That is effective in it's own way.
But to just wander around with it on show? Does it matter if you have the biggest? You have risen above such petty matters.
Yes this is what I meant with the "omg the reasons are so obvious blah blah". I was still disappointed in the amount of blue dilz, even with 4 of them being onscreen at one point.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Ah so no actual response to what I've said Ahtman just cheap attempts at a hit.
Of course I can understand that, you've nothing to say as its occured to you, you didn't actually read my post properly before you posted last night.
I did read it, that is why i know you didn't say much worth responding to, since, as noted, you don't know what you are talking about. It's sort of a waste of time.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Ah so you've fallen back to the position of obvious troll and all that, good work sir you win the interwebs.
Yup, you got me. I'm going around making spurious claims about works I've never seen or read to rile people up, very troll like behavior it would appear.
The crux of this seems to be that you have formed an opinion on something you have neither read nor seen?
Reminds me of the Daily Mail review. I don't what film they watched, but it certainly wasn't Watchmen.
I failed to see a Rape scene (described by them as graphic) nor did I see the promised 'little girl being ripped apart by Dogs'.
Now, what I DID see was an attempted Rape, with an immediate reprisal, and the non too subtle suggestion of what the missing girls fate had been. Far, far from what the Daily Nazi claimed.
As for the shooting of the pregnant woman, it's central to whole theme. The Comedian even points it out. He pulls the trigger, sure. But Dr Manhattan just sort of stands there doing nothing, when it was well within his capabilities to stop harm coming to the woman. He would even have known what was coming, being able to see the past and future at the same time. Why is this central? Because it asks questions about responsibility. The Comedian had become too dependant on Dr Manhattans god like powers, and that affects his judgement. If you had a loaded gun, and knew for a fact that should you point and pull at someone, that your buddy could and would prevent any and all harm, the moral quandry of whether to do so or not becomes a lot less clear.
Well as I wasn't responding to the comic in the post you responded to, you obviously got that part wrong, but as your are too proud to admit it. I withdraw from the discussion dear sir. No point banging my head against a wall if you don't even read the posts.
edit - that was at Ahtman, not MDG.
Oh and I will add the rape thing and other bits mentioned wasn't so much me bothered by it (as in not really at all, I've done worse in my RPG games) as I noted a few times, but how I reckoned the way it was being portrayed in movie spot shows as a true 'superhero' film.
Something that might indicate the horrifying drop in auidences the Watchmen has recieved in its second week, which according to several movies sites is down to terrible 'word of mouth' by folks going to see it.
I would like to stress once again, I have no actual issue with this film and intend to see it.
Gentlemen, please continue the discussion and ignore posts to this point that you might have considered flaming. I would restart the thread but there has been some good commentary on all sides.
To be honest as sad as it is, I think the 'blue wang' is probably the reason for the dramatic fall in auidiences. More so than my concerns of how it was advertised a few pages back.
You know I would not put that past the general audience that was there.
They were so, so uncomfortable with that little blue outline and its 1 minute of overall film time.
Yet tits and girl ass is fine and the norm. I mean I have no problems with women in the media in general, but that really pissed me off, that the idea of a naked man was embarassing, but they couldnt wait for the silk spectre to get her tiny kit off.
tunic thingy, sandals and cape for ze sleeping.
