It seems that most of whom I've met have liked it only if they read the graphic novel. The graphic novel is excellent, but it really doesn't (and shouldn't have been made into) a movie. For what it was, I didn't think it was so bad, but it really annoyed me at times. it certainly could have been worse.
I really enjoyed the graphic novel but I found the translation from paper to silver screen not that great. Sure there are plenty of scenes that I enjoyed immensely but eh, some parts just didn't feel quite right.
The novel's original "theme" wouldn't have translated well to a modern audience.
Remember, the whole theme of the novel is an outside threat(the squid beast rawr) forcing the world's nuclear superpowers into cooperation. Now, there's really not warring "superpowers". There's the US and Russia, who see eye to eye...mostly. Then there's dozens of "lesser" states that are nuclear capable.
I thought they did a fairly good job with the movie, although the lack of Squidmonster and subsequent explanation of what Bubastis is, is really quite annoying.
Kanluwen wrote:The novel's original "theme" wouldn't have translated well to a modern audience.
Remember, the whole theme of the novel is an outside threat(the squid beast rawr) forcing the world's nuclear superpowers into cooperation. Now, there's really not warring "superpowers". There's the US and Russia, who see eye to eye...mostly. Then there's dozens of "lesser" states that are nuclear capable.
That isn't a theme, that is a plot point.
Jimi Nemesis wrote:I thought they did a fairly good job with the movie, although the lack of Squidmonster and subsequent explanation of what Bubastis is, is really quite annoying.
I also hate how they call Rorscharch "Rorshack"
That is how it is pronounced. It might be that you added in a 'r' that isn't there. It is spelled 'Rorschach'. The book explained Bubastis as well so I'm not sure what the problem is. I didn't miss the squidmonster. It was a McGuffin anyway. The thing itself isn't what is important, it is what it does that is important. This worked just as well with the added benifit of trying to explain that psychic powers are much more real in that world and that they could make a fake working brain that could send out a psychic wave that would make everyone have bad dreams about alien worlds.
Seems to be a polarizing film. People tend to really enjoy it or hate it with little in between.
Ahtman wrote:I didn't miss the squidmonster. It was a McGuffin anyway. The thing itself isn't what is important, it is what it does that is important. This worked just as well with the added benifit of trying to explain that psychic powers are much more real in that world and that they could make a fake working brain that could send out a psychic wave that would make everyone have bad dreams about alien worlds.
It fit with genre deconstruction the comic was playing with, taking all the crazy ideas of comic books that were around in the 80s and taking them seriously. What better way to demonstrate that than with a supervillain's plan that involves a giant psychic squid? Of course, that isn't going to translate into a movie made 20 years later, so they snipped it out and reduced the plot elements. It was a sensible change well executed.
The bigger issue was cutting the black freighter. I understand running time was already a problem, but it was just about the most important piece of the text. Without it, you don't have the idea that a violent life warps the individual, nor the idea that Ozymandias might have been wrong about the inevitability of nuclear war.
Seems to be a polarizing film. People tend to really enjoy it or hate it with little in between.
I liked it somewhat. It looked great and in a few places really brought the comic to life (I never really got why people accepted the Comedian in the comic, but as shown in the film he made a lot more sense). But ultimately, I felt it was a fairly literal translation of a comic that was always going to be a very difficult conversion. The end result was two hours of exposition and then an anti-climactic ending - fine in a periodical cartoon but a big problem for a movie.
I would definitely watch it again, mainly because I thought it was simply better than most of the comic conversions out there now.
Maybe Spiderman 3 just lowered my expectations, but Watchmen, was a fantastic pick for a movie. I hope in the future some of these studios think about picking up some of the more alternative heroes as well, in their crusade of silver screen awesomeness.
Oh, and Iron Man 2 better be awesome... or else Hollywood... or freaking else... umm, I guess I wouldn't watch it at that point. Yeah, that would work.
My biggest complaint about the movie was that they made the protagonists too 'superhuman', particularly when it came to the fight sequences (which also could've done without the Zack Snyder slow-motion back to normal time scenes). A large point was that these people are regular people. No super-powers or anything.
Really needed another couple of hours to flesh out the characters more and not rush through the story so damn much.
Knowing how to rush a good story (rather pack it into such a small window) is the sign of a good flick, but sadly, some stories simply are not popular enough to sink that kind of cash into them.
You could say the same thing about the Spiderman movies, but those have gone on, and on, and on, and... well maybe not too much further. There is really no way for a studio to guarantee results like that, so they automatically trim at least a few corners. A lot of people complained about Lord of the Rings, but in all honesty, how in the fething hell else could they have worked out the time constraints? Oh, and the enormous budget to manage too...
I liked it and I've read the original graphic novel.
Considering it's set in a parallel world where superheroes are real and helped the US win the Vietnam War, I don't think the precise anomaly about the Soviet Union should create serious cognitive dissonance.
It was a good translation from a comic book to a film. The director dropped or changed the right bits of the original story to keep the film a manageable length and still make sense.
It should be pretty easy to make comic books into films because they are basically a film story board to start with.
Things often go wrong somehow. (See League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen, for example.)
Maybe if some studio manages to get their balls and heads together, we could see an impressive comeback though. I truly think that work deserves another chance.
Wait a second... did they already make a second one? Am I looking at a strange alternate poster elsewhere? Hmm.... must investigate this.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:I loved it, it most certainly beat the seven shades of gak out of transformers 2...
Yea but so did every other movie.
Off topic but if you have kids and an excuse, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs is righteously funny. Any film that has James Caan, Mr. T, and Bubba Hotep" Campbell is twisted and excellent.
Watchmen isn't even my favorite Alan Moor comic but I liked it, it wasn't amazing but it wasn't a waste of my time. It was better than every other superhero/comicbook film I've seen since The Dark Knight.
It's a reasonable film. I was entertained and didn't regret the ticket price, and there are some excellent scenes, but it didn't live up to the comic for me. I should point out that while I liked the comic, I'm not a rabid fanboy of it, so I wasn't going into the movie with unrealistic expectations.
The good:
The casting of Rorschach was impeccable, he's the highlight of the film for me, truly excellent.
The comedian - as someone said, I preferred the character in the film to the comic version just because the addition of the human element (movement and mannerisms) makes him that much more a believable and likable character.
Dr Manhattan's giant blue wang. Never before has a film caused me to check the titles for the role of "lead wang animator".
The bad:
Night owl senior missing from the plot
Night owl junior being far too... tough, cool and handsome. Lost the heart of the character.
The slo-mo fight scenes. Leave it out.
The incredibly bad sex scene in night owl's craft... Oh dear god.
The end - I want my squid, logic be damned!
I know what you mean man, I simply could not keep my eyes off of the damn thing... all the other stuff tried to distract me... but to no avail, I had to see it, I had too... and it horrified me greatly.
When the movie comes out on DVD, I am sure they will work out a blue-pee-pee filter button somehow.
So you were surprised that the naked guys dick was the same colour as the rest of him? Get over it already. It's alright, you can't catch gay from looking at a man's penis.
George Spiggott wrote:So you were surprised that the naked guys dick was the same colour as the rest of him? Get over it already. It's alright, you can't catch gay from looking at a man's penis.
George Spiggott wrote:So you were surprised that the naked guys dick was the same colour as the rest of him? Get over it already. It's alright, you can't catch gay from looking at a man's penis.
So I can't express an opinion without getting back slapped? sheesh
I'm British and Frazzled's Canadian (according to the little icon by his avatar). I am unable therefore to comment on the urinary habits of american men.
mockingbirduk wrote:I'm British and Frazzled's Canadian (according to the little icon by his avatar). I am unable therefore to comment on the urinary habits of american men.
I liked it. It was absolutely choc-full of cliches, in fact, I'd go so far as to say the script was nothing BUT cliches, but it was tailored together into an enjoyable cinematic experience.
mockingbirduk wrote:I'm British and Frazzled's Canadian (according to the little icon by his avatar). I am unable therefore to comment on the urinary habits of american men.
Wrexasaur wrote:Knowing how to rush a good story (rather pack it into such a small window) is the sign of a good flick, but sadly, some stories simply are not popular enough to sink that kind of cash into them.
You could say the same thing about the Spiderman movies, but those have gone on, and on, and on, and... well maybe not too much further. There is really no way for a studio to guarantee results like that, so they automatically trim at least a few corners. A lot of people complained about Lord of the Rings, but in all honesty, how in the fething hell else could they have worked out the time constraints? Oh, and the enormous budget to manage too...
Cutting story from Watchmen wasn't about saving money, it was about the pacing of the film. A comic is picked up and put down, or read in increments as a periodical, so the pacing can ebb and flow. Additional plotting like the psychic squid can be included in the comic and it would still work.
But for the film you need to keep in much cleaner, build more evenly to the climax. Watchmen came in at around three hours as it was, and was already bloated with exposition. If anything the film was too slavish to the comic, and probably could have benefited from cutting more.
George Spiggott wrote:Sounds like Fraz has extended his lawn again.
Exactly. Texas and Canada have agreed to take over the USA in a daring pincer maneuver. All those T. Hortons in the Northeast are really advanced staging posts...
mockingbirduk wrote:I'm British and Frazzled's Canadian (according to the little icon by his avatar). I am unable therefore to comment on the urinary habits of american men.
BWAHAHAHAHA.... Frazz...canadian...
Have I made some kind of amusing Dakka faux-pas?
nah, frazz just loves to tote that he's in texas blah blah blah big guns blah blah blah hail to our comrade overlord blah blah blah sheep.
mockingbirduk wrote:I'm British and Frazzled's Canadian (according to the little icon by his avatar). I am unable therefore to comment on the urinary habits of american men.
BWAHAHAHAHA.... Frazz...canadian...
Have I made some kind of amusing Dakka faux-pas?
nah, frazz just loves to tote that he's in texas blah blah blah big guns blah blah blah hail to our comrade overlord blah blah blah sheep.
mockingbirduk wrote:I'm British and Frazzled's Canadian (according to the little icon by his avatar). I am unable therefore to comment on the urinary habits of american men.
BWAHAHAHAHA.... Frazz...canadian...
Have I made some kind of amusing Dakka faux-pas?
nah, frazz just loves to tote that he's in texas blah blah blah big guns blah blah blah hail to our comrade overlord blah blah blah sheep.
In November, 2009, an "Ultimate Collector's Edition" will be released. The five-disc set will include the director's cut of the film with Tales of the Black Freighter woven in, new commentaries by Zack Snyder and Dave Gibbons, the complete Watchmen Motion Comics, and over 3 hours of bonus content including Under the Hood, which was previously released on the Tales of the Black Freighter DVD.
I liked the movie due to all the intense graphic violent scenes. It is one of my favorite movies and I watch it again whenever I get the chance. The movie plot is deep and simply goes over a lot of people's heads. The movie is an excellent depiction of the graphic novel.
I liked the way they did the end. by that time, I was a little tired of inhabiting their world and was ready for everything to be wrapped up. It made sense also, because Dr. Manhattan was itching for an excuse to go far, far away. (Just be glad he didn't feel a "male itch" at anytime during the movie, especially when he was twenty feet tall.)
I was pretty disappointed (sp) with Watchmen. I think that it needed to be spread out over 3 movies and the Black Freighter was an essential aspect of the graphic novel.
I could care less about blue wangs, missing monster squid, and slow-mo fights. I think the slow-mo fights made them seem pretty BA (even though they weren't like that in the book). I think the story is still relevant. It just lost too much in the translation.
Watchmen was worth every penny I spent to see it, including the popcorn & soda. Of course, when the admission itself is only $3, and you get a buck off on the snack combo, it's hard not to get your money's worth at less than $4/hour for 2 hours of entertainment, with snacks included!
Have I just been offered a lifetimes supply of consensual buggery by a talking owl?
Not quite. I'm too much a fan of the fairer sex to dally with the boys. I'm just saying that it is possible that a guy will look at a penis and just go "screw it, I used to like chicks but now I see what I've been missing."
Polonius wrote:Not quite. I'm too much a fan of the fairer sex to dally with the boys. I'm just saying that it is possible that a guy will look at a penis and just go "screw it, I used to like chicks but now I see what I've been missing."
So my search for the penis that turns you gay must continue...
Vladsimpaler wrote:Oh please. If Dr. Manhattan was actually a blue naked Megan Fox with her assets bobbing around, there would be NO complaints.
And a lot more ticket sales.
My first thought was 'duh, geeks are mostly hetero dudes and so they prefer nude chicks to nude blokes', but then I figured we should test this theory.
Beowulf, with a CGI Angelina Jolie in the nuddy grossed $82,161,969. Watchmen, with a CGI blue wang, grossed $107,509,799.
Turns out us geeks are 30.8% bigger fans of bloke bits.
Vladsimpaler wrote:Oh please. If Dr. Manhattan was actually a blue naked Megan Fox with her assets bobbing around, there would be NO complaints.
And a lot more ticket sales.
My first thought was 'duh, geeks are mostly hetero dudes and so they prefer nude chicks to nude blokes', but then I figured we should test this theory.
Beowulf, with a CGI Angelina Jolie in the nuddy grossed $82,161,969. Watchmen, with a CGI blue wang, grossed $107,509,799.
Turns out us geeks are 30.8% bigger fans of bloke bits.
I think that had more to do with Angelina's disgusting, slutty, whore bits being old news than anything else.
Megan Fox, on the other hand, is fresh meat, younger, and much less of a gigantic whore.
I think it did as well as it did because of the allure of the 3D and semi nude Jolie. The 3D was fairly well done but the movie seemed to swing wildly from wanting to be the 'real' story of Beowulf to fantasy.
dogma wrote:In other news: That's the first time I've ever seen the words 'disgusting' and 'Angelina Jolie' in the same sentence.
How about, "I find Angelina Jolie to be, in general, disgusting. In particular during and since the 'Billy Bob Thorton years'."
I really liked her in the Bone Collector, thought she did an excellent acting job. And since then, I can't think of one thing she's done that I've liked. And I don't find her that attractive either, I mean, when Mick Jagger can look at someone and say, "those are some big lips you got", it says somthing.
And the comments about a CGI Jolie and her dangly bits. As that wonderful entertainer and human-being Rosie O'Donnell said to Madonna in League of their Own, "Do you think there's a man in America who hasn't seen your bosoms?"
edit:
Back to OT. I haven't seen the film. It's not real high on my list. I bought Indiana Jones: the Last Hurrah (or whatever it was called, Crystal Skulls maybe?) about 3 months and still haven't watched it. I'd rather watch the Steelers beat up on the Brownies this weekend than watch the Watchmen. I think Zak Snyder is like a lot of artists. He might be talented, and he might not be, but it doesn't matter, because (in general) I don't care for his work.
I really like the Watchmen comic. Still read it occasionally. I don't see how it would translate onto film very well. But, it doesn't have to. Print media and movies are two different animals - a story can work well in one format and flop in another. And I don't have a problem with the movie not staying 'true' to the comic, it just can't. But, I think the Black Freighter and Under the Hood are essential parts of the comic story, and omitting those from the film gives me a lower opinion of it.
sebster wrote:[Meanwhile, did Jolie shoot your dog or something?
No, she's just disgusting. Aside from making out with her brother and marrying Billy Bob, her favorite past time when bored is to phone a friend(regardless of age or sex) and tell them to come over a feth her.
Seriously, all the weirdness she's done I can't find her the slightest bit attractive.
This weekend for me baby. Rum, pizza, and real buttered popcorn comingatme!
Saw it on Friday. Was planning on going to see couples retreat(I know it got bad reviews), but time didin't allow. So we went to see zombieland. It wasn't really my cup o' tea. Bill Murray stole the movie. IMO.
For a movie called Zombie-etc... etc... it really was lacking in that respect. A whole lot of drama, but sincerely though... not. enough. zombie. action.
sebster wrote:[Meanwhile, did Jolie shoot your dog or something?
No, she's just disgusting.
I feel that way about Megan Fox. She looks like leather and I worry about STD's. Some of the stuff she has said in interviews is also facepalm worthy. Sorry ladies, give me Rosario Dawson or Aisha Tyler over either of them any day.
I don't find Megan Fox disgusting. I don't think she's all that and a bag of chips either. But, I don't think that I've ever heard her talk either.
Jennifer Love Hewitt and Jessica Alba are on my list right now. I'm not sure that there's another 3 women to put on my list, but if I think about it, I could probably come up with some names.
I'm seriously thinking of seeing Wild Things when it comes out. ____
Ahtman wrote:
No, she's just disgusting.
I feel that way about Megan Fox.
Oh, please. Like you wouldn't do her in a heartbeat if the opportunity presented itself.
She isn't really all that special when she isn't 60 feet wide on the big screen, have artificial lighting, and several thousand dollars worth of makeup prep. Not to mention the freaky collagen injected lips. I went to school with girls that were just as beautiful. I'va also been around long enough to see I don't really let my penis lead me around so no, I wouldn't "do her" in a heartbeat.
There’s been a shift in this dynamic in Bay’s last two movies. In the Transformers films, Megan Fox remains surprisingly involved for a Bay heroine; she fights robots, dates the hero, and has an investment in usual relationship models. (Instead of marriage, she wants Shia LaBeouf, lead character and commitment-phobe, to say, “I love you.”) But she’s also far more objectified than Bay’s other female leads. One of the most recognizable shots from the first film has Fox bent over the hood of a car, stomach gleaming, talking about engines while the sunlight coats her in a lazy, sweaty haze. In the second film, she’s introduced bent over, ass in the air, straddling a motorcycle like an extra from David Cronenberg’s Crash.
Both scenes are Maxim-style sexy; pin-up poses simultaneously pornographic and laughably adolescent. For all his endless fetishization (and everything in an MBM is fetishized, even down to the L.A. smog), Bay rarely seems comfortable with actual sex. His movies exist in a world of perpetual teenage frenzy, where the thought of naked girls is primary, but the actual mechanics of what to do should a willing one arrive on the scene are far too complicated to contemplate. Fox doesn’t represent a huge leap forward for the director, but at the very least, she shows us what he’s been striving for all this time—a pretty girl who’s a little slutty (but not a lot), with a tough, kick-ass exterior, and who deep down just wants to be loved. And by “loved,” we mean some hugging, tongue-kissing, and maybe a little light petting.
I think laughably adolescent summarizes here appeal. I'm not laughing and I'm not an adolescent so she doesn't really do it for me.
I think I can count all of the women I've turned down sexually, barring a committed relationship, on... no hands, so I guess I'm going to have to say that I'm fine with any of them.
I'd agree with that. I saw a lot of comparison between Fox and Jolie when the first Transformers came out, but honestly I don't see it. Fox is attractive because she's young, and well-proportioned. Not that Jolie isn't, she most certainly is, but she also benefits from a great deal of eccentricity which many men find highly appealing. The same can be said of Scarlet Johanson, Rosario Dawson, Marilyn Monroe, etc.
I didn't see any normal, human problems in Watchmen. I mean, I don't struggle with losing my humanity as the result of acquiring god-like powers, nor do I feel that my real face is a handmade mask. Watchmen wasn't about the fact that superheros are human, it was about the fact that to be a superhero you have to possess superdysfunctions.
dogma wrote:I didn't see any normal, human problems in Watchmen.
Yeah, cause us real people don't have relationship problems(Dr. Manhattan and Silk Spectre II), self esteem problems(Night Owl II), don't fall in love with their rapist(Silk Spectre I), can't be completely indecent human beings(Comedian), and can't succumb to rage(Rorschach). Nope, no normal human problems at all in that book.
I'd say if you wanted a superhero story that reflected our own everyday issues you'd find more in Spiderman. In between saving the city he’s worried about getting a job, making his auntie happy, and telling his long lost crush that he loves her.
On the other hand, the idea behind Watchmen is that people who put on masks and fight criminals at night are not normal, everyday people and they don’t have normal, everyday problems. In fact, they tend to be completely bonkers.
I think I get what you’re saying, Platuan4th, but I don’t want to put words in your mouth. The characters in Watchmen are more believable because they are the sorts of people who would actually dress up in costumes and beat people up, whereas Spiderman and the like are deliberately unreal characters.
sebster wrote:I'd say if you wanted a superhero story that reflected our own everyday issues you'd find more in Spiderman. .
totally..I've lost count of the number of times my wife made a deal with the devil to erase from the public's minds my true identity which also causes our marriage not to have happened....
dogma wrote:I didn't see any normal, human problems in Watchmen.
Yeah, cause us real people don't have relationship problems(Dr. Manhattan and Silk Spectre II), self esteem problems(Night Owl II), don't fall in love with their rapist(Silk Spectre I), can't be completely indecent human beings(Comedian), and can't succumb to rage(Rorschach). Nope, no normal human problems at all in that book.
sebster wrote:I'd say if you wanted a superhero story that reflected our own everyday issues you'd find more in Spiderman. In between saving the city he’s worried about getting a job, making his auntie happy, and telling his long lost crush that he loves her.
On the other hand, the idea behind Watchmen is that people who put on masks and fight criminals at night are not normal, everyday people and they don’t have normal, everyday problems. In fact, they tend to be completely bonkers.
I think I get what you’re saying, Platuan4th, but I don’t want to put words in your mouth. The characters in Watchmen are more believable because they are the sorts of people who would actually dress up in costumes and beat people up, whereas Spiderman and the like are deliberately unreal characters.
I can relate to The Watchmen but I can't relate to Spiderman at all. Then again, I'm a bit of a degenerate who generally prefers the company of the eccentric and unhinged "fringe" members of society. Spiderman is one of my least favorite superheroes and I've never bothered to watch any of the movies.
Cool, although I was trying more of a real world math equation.
From Ask Bob
Dear Bob,
If a woman has the ability to launch 6 .44 hollowpoints weighing 240 grains each at 1350 fps at your fat arse, will that equal compliance with marital vows?
dogma wrote:I didn't see any normal, human problems in Watchmen. I mean, I don't struggle with losing my humanity as the result of acquiring god-like powers, nor do I feel that my real face is a handmade mask. Watchmen wasn't about the fact that superheros are human, it was about the fact that to be a superhero you have to possess superdysfunctions.
I can't tell if you are being critical of it because you can't relate to it or if you are just pointing out that we aren't supposed to be able to relate to it.
I always was amused that Rorschach was viewed by Moore as an awful person, basically a fascist or terrorist, yet is often peoples favorite. I remember leaving the theatre and people were commenting on how bad-ass he was. I think it is that he represents simple (non-existent) absolute moralism. Instead of the shades of grey reality we struggle with he sees everything as only either absolutely right or absolutely wrong.
No, because you wouldn't ever attribute that to Hitler - if you knew your fascists, you'd correctly say that Mussolini kept the trains running on time.
If you wanted to say something nice about Hitler, you might say that he brought Hope and Change to his country.
Not sane by any measure, but not "evil", and not really "fascist" (at least not in his actions; he seemed to have a Hobbes thing going on ideologically) or "terrorist" (unless you count Batman as a terrorist of sorts himself). He did seem liable to shanghai not significantly related people into his hunts, which I suppose was a questionable move.
I'm just going by the movie, though, I haven't read the comic yet.
Ahtman wrote:
I can't tell if you are being critical of it because you can't relate to it or if you are just pointing out that we aren't supposed to be able to relate to it.
The latter.
Platuan4th wrote:
Yeah, cause us real people don't have relationship problems(Dr. Manhattan and Silk Spectre II),
You're relationship problems stem from the fact that you've been elevated to another plane of existence? I mean, its one thing to ape a dynamic which seems to exist within relationships, its another thing entirely to state that the dynamic actually exists within the relationship being portrayed.
If your past includes deeds of exceptional bad-assery in way that Dreiberg's does you have to be struggling with more than simple self-esteem issues. Nite Owl II is average by pathology.
Platuan4th wrote:
don't fall in love with their rapist(Silk Spectre I),
You're actually putting this forward as a 'normal' human problem? Rape, sure. Falling in love with the rapist? No.
Platuan4th wrote:
can't be completely indecent human beings(Comedian),
The Comedian isn't just indecent. He makes indecency a comical farce, hence the name. That's the point of the entire character.
Platuan4th wrote:
and can't succumb to rage(Rorschach).
So I take it you've been so angry that you decided to chop up some guy with an axe, after doing the same to his dogs? Or at least struggled with the impulse? I don't mean just considered it. I mean actually had to chop something else up with the axe in order to avoid it. Nerd rage does not count.
Platuan4th wrote:
Nope, no normal human problems at all in that book.
You have a ,very, very strange understanding of what 'normal, human problems' are. The point of the novel is that these people aren't normal. They're exceptional, in everything they do, even Nite Owl II is exceptionally average. They have problems that are similar to those that other people suffer from, but they aren't normal in anyway. They're average issues pushed to their absolute extremes. We can relate to them via vague abstraction, but if you come away from Watchmen thinking "Yeah, if I were Silk Spectre I would have fallen in love with the Comedian too." I think you've missed the point.
Noble713 wrote:I can relate to The Watchmen but I can't relate to Spiderman at all. Then again, I'm a bit of a degenerate who generally prefers the company of the eccentric and unhinged "fringe" members of society. Spiderman is one of my least favorite superheroes and I've never bothered to watch any of the movies.
I'm no fan of Spiderman either. The switch between regular everyday problems and battling supervillains really appeals to me. The switch is so extreme it isn't really possible to contrast the two that meaningfully and it ends up more of an escapist fantasy, Peter Parker the goob (who's just like the reader) by day, and wisecracking crimefighter by night. There's only so much material possible before you end up having to invent the kind of silliness Orkeosaurus mentioned.
Watchmen takes a very different model, proposing that the kinds of people that might become secret vigilantes would be very disturbed people. And that they'd become more disturbed in turn.
It's a more realistic concept, in a sense. But we're not supposed to be thinking that these people are just like us.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orkeosaurus wrote:I'm not sure the Rorschach was that bad of a guy.
Not sane by any measure, but not "evil", and not really "fascist" (at least not in his actions; he seemed to have a Hobbes thing going on ideologically) or "terrorist" (unless you count Batman as a terrorist of sorts himself). He did seem liable to shanghai not significantly related people into his hunts, which I suppose was a questionable move.
I'm just going by the movie, though, I haven't read the comic yet.
Rorschach isn't really good or evil, he's just bonkers. Patrolling the streets at night he'd seen too many horrible things, and really couldn't take it any more. So he drifted further and further into the idea of Rorschach as the avenger, not Walter Kovacs the guy who just couldn't take how ugly things can get.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orkeosaurus wrote:Of course not. He was born in Kenya, and raised to be a secret Muslim.
And we should be scared of his black Christian minister.
Wrexasaur wrote:I know what you mean man, I simply could not keep my eyes off of the damn thing... all the other stuff tried to distract me... but to no avail, I had to see it, I had too... and it horrified me greatly.
Evidently you're not the only one bothered by Dr. Manhatten's glowing blue manhood......
JohnHwangDD wrote:No, because you wouldn't ever attribute that to Hitler - if you knew your fascists, you'd correctly say that Mussolini kept the trains running on time.
...which he didn't actually do. This is a half remembered reference to him getting a single train to run on time to enable him to get to the capital to take power.
reds8n wrote:...which he didn't actually do. This is a half remembered reference to him getting a single train to run on time to enable him to get to the capital to take power.
[hijack]
Sort of, the fascists did make a big deal of building a rail network that was the envy of the world, as an example of the value of fascist super-efficiency. The trains did actually improve, as they were in a woeful state after WWI, but most of the work done to improve them was undertaken before Mussolini came to power. And while the train system improved, it was never that great.
He did some work on the actual structure of the railway system itself, but there's no evidence that the actual punctuality improved at all.
And there is no shortage of witnesses to testify that even the tourist trains were often late. A Belgian foreign minister wrote: 'The time is no more when Italian trains run to time. We always were kept waiting for more than a quarter of an hour at the level-crossings because the trains were never there at the times they should have been passing.' The British journalist Elizabeth Wiskemann, likewise, dismissed 'the myth about the punctual trains'. 'I travelled in a number that were late,' she wrote.
The notion that the trains were running on time was none the less vigorously put about by the Fascist propaganda machine. 'Official press agents and official philosophers . . . explained to the world that the running of trains was the symbol of the restoration of law and order,' wrote Seldes. It helped that foreign correspondents in Rome were very carefully controlled and that the reporting of all railway accidents or delays was banned.
Il Duce himself never missed an opportunity to be associated with great public works, and railways were among his favourites. Whenever a big rail bridge, or a station or a new line was opened, he was there to take the credit. In 1934, with a triumphant fanfare, he opened the direct Florence-Bologna line which included 'the world's longest double-track tunnel'. He failed to point out that the project had been initiated by another government, long before he took power.
Typically, he fell victim to his own propaganda. Mussolini's biographer, Denis Mack Smith, points out that Italy usually imported its coal by sea, but after the Second World War broke out this was no longer possible and it had to come overland. The Duce's railway system, however, was not up to the job.
'Only two of the nine railroads through the Alps had been provided with double tracks and their capacity was estimated as equal to little more than a quarter of Italy's peacetime needs,' writes Mack Smith.
'As the trains running on time had become one of the accepted myths of Fascism, and as Mussolini had never charged anyone with the task of planning communications in the event of war, the matter had gone by default.'
...this is fething off topic even for us denizens of the OT board however....can we work gun ownership/abortion/creationism or dark eldar in here and finally complete the internet..?
X WHY DID ANYONE MAKE A MOVIE SO Crappy!!!