Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Kanluwen wrote:Does it make me not a man that I don't like either Fox or Jolie?

No, your man card is fully intact. The great thing about humans: we're capable of finding different things and people attractive.

Fox? People are talking about Fox?

Blralralghg!!! I hate Glen Beck! Why do people watch that channel! They steer political discourse away from the real issues!

I hadn't even heard of The Watchmen until it was mentioned that the movie was in production. I'm not a big comic fan.

I saw it. I liked it. It was nice to superheroes with normal human problems and screwed-up relationships.

Wrexasaur wrote:I think I found the cure for that, you can thank me later .

I got this far into the thread and decided I didn't need to see anymore.

The movie wasn't bad... could have used more zombies or Megan Fox though.

Noble713 wrote:I saw it. I liked it. It was nice to superheroes with normal human problems and screwed-up relationships.

Yeah, but those existed before Watchmen.

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....

Platuan4th wrote:

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.

Marshal Law is my favourite superhero.

dietrich wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Oh, please. Like you wouldn't do her in a heartbeat if the opportunity presented itself.

I wouldn't, I would like to keep living in my house with my family and to keep my two best friends (and I don't mean the ones in the Winnebago).

Indeed.
She Who Must Be Obeyed plus
access to high capacity firearms plus
years of shooting equals
Look with your eyes, not with your hands.

..hmm.... it's a good attempt Mr. Frazzled but that Haiku isn't quite there yet.Top marks for effort though.

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?

Bob
Youbetcha.

Don't forget Wild Cards.

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.

Well, that and he sacrifices himself on strict principle - there's some admirable nobility there that people can respect.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Well, that and he sacrifices himself on strict principle - there's some admirable nobility there that people can respect.

Is that like saying Hitler kept the trains running on time?

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.

Would that be Change We Can Believe In (tm) or just the regular jew-hating kind?

/sarcasm

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.

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.

Platuan4th wrote:
self esteem problems(Night Owl II),

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.

Albatross wrote:Would that be Change We Can Believe In (tm) or just the regular jew-hating kind?

/sarcasm

I'm no follower of Tzeentch, so the latter more probably applies.

I'm so happy I took the whole thread off topic.

I think I'll do it again.

Was Obama born in the U.S.?

Of course not. He was born in Kenya, and raised to be a secret Muslim.

A secret Muslim supervillain* Ork.

With Death Panels.

radiohazard wrote:I want 2 hours, 35 minutes and 25 seconds of my life back.

Did anyone actually like this film???

I HATED IT IT WAS A CRAPPY MOVIE AND HAD TOO MUCH SX WHY DID ANYONE MAKE A MOVIE SO Crappy!!!
the novel was better.
threads on topic again

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.

When I refer to Kovacs as a fascist I am doing so in the context of Alan Moore calling him a fascist.