Comic Book Plus Forum
All And Everything => General Discussion => Topic started by: Yoc on March 14, 2009, 10:16:00 PM
-
Ok Gang,
Anyone else seen this yet and have an opinion on it?
I got to see it yesterday with a female friend who doesn't know the Moore series but is a semi-fan of some comics and comic based movies.
My thoughts -
I enjoyed the original series though the pirate comic sections bored me silly and I didn't miss them at all in the movie or the 'motion comic' that was produced. I wont be bothering with animated dvd to be released later this year.
[SPOILERS ALERT]
I recently watched the Motion Comic to refresh my memory before seeing the film. The film has some subtle tweaks to the dialogue and curious changes to some irrelevant numbers like how long the short mob boss had be locked up in prison but these weren't worrying about. Silk Spectre 2 seems to have been made less militant and bitter and more 'hot' than in the comic though that might be just Gibbon's artwork. His women will never be confused with a drawing by Matt Baker! ;)
An energy sub-plot seemed an excuse to GRAPHICALLY shoot and kill Lee Iacocca in Matrix style slo-mo.
It got a sick laugh from my audience.
The jail break scene was another chance for Director Snyder to amp up the action sequences with Matrix slo-mo fight scenes of Spectre and Night Owl (who looked more buff than the comic). I'm sure Hollywood screamed 'not enough action' without these additions.
The most objectionable addition to me though was the AMAZINGLY BRUTAL and GRAPHIC massacre of street thugs by Spectre and Night Owl - a scene that only last a few panels in the comic and isn't anywhere nearly as violent or lethal as the movie. Snyder doesn't seem to mind giving All of his Watchmen leeway to kill at their own discretion. It's not just The Comedian shooting a pregnant woman or Rorschach meat cleaving a murdering paedophile - it's Night Owl breaking necks and Spectre impaling necks. Snyder blurs the line between his heroes almost from the first scene making it harder for the viewer to discern the subtle questions Moore asks about the nature of 'heroes' in a fictional America.
Now of course that is the main thrust of the film and Snyder handles the murder mystery of The Comedian and the alienation of Dr Manhattan quite effectively. But his fixation on BRUTAL VIOLENCE where Moore and Gibbons only hinted at it was NOT appreciated my me and will likely hurt the box-office draw with it's movie rating. Anyone how thinks about taking a younger kid into this is not doing their child any favours. The lady I was with cringed and groaned in pain watching these while also complaining about Dr Manhattan's lack of a loin cloth. I told her Doc was a nudest in the comic but not as graphically as he is in the movie! Not something I'd care to see in IMAX! LOL
If they gave out an award for opening titles I'd give it to Watchmen in a heartbeat. What a great way to summarize the alternate reality earth history with a walking h-bomb for a hero and the possible effects he might have on our world. The film also had some great choices for music though having Leonard Cohen for the love scene was a turn-off for me. I can say that - I'm Canadian!
Snyder amped up the love scenes as well as the violence. From my eyes was tasteful. It again helped soften the Silk Spectre from her angry feminist personality in the comic.
I think Snyder must have been worried most about the Mars scene where Dr Manhattan recalls his origin and first girlfriend. This was one of the more challenging issues of the comic with multiple time threads interweaving to illustrate not only Doc's origins, upbring and romances but also give the reader a firm grasp of how Doc is simultaneously living every moment of his life since his transformation. Past-Present-and Future are all one to him. Snyder mentions it and even explains it but he didn't use EVERY reality thread found in the comic to illustrate it. His first girlfriend is given quick work here but a Jerry Springer moment is added using her that was very effective. We also get to see Doc's best buddy Wally die of cancer in a hospital bed in another added scene.
The most emotionally exhausting issue of the comic for me was #6 - Rorschach's origin. Again Snyder tweaks subtle points (adding a dummy in the shower and a suspicious suspect from the moment he first shows) and completely changes Rorschach's form of retribution. I suspect that was to avoid the makers of Saw from screaming foul even though Moore had done it loooong before Saw was written.
The casting was pretty good for the most part. Jackie Earle Haley's Rorschach steals ever scene he's in. Wonderful acting. Billy Crudup as Manhattan was correctly under stated while Malin
-
My wife and I saw it together. I concur with most of your observations. The plot was the star and overcame some lack luster acting. Rorsh was by far the best part of the movie other than the overall story. I have always believed the story to be my main interest and the actors as incidental in most movies. I found the violence acceptable because it was a violent film by nature. I would not have needed it to be graphic but do not believe it would work with the younger crowd without it. The sex scene was totally not needed. It could have been intimated without being shown gratutiously. As a Christian I was very offended by the Halelujah during the sex scene and my wife was livid. She enjoyed the movie up until that point then could not enjoy the rest. I think the movie did a fantastic job of conveying its intended message and would have rated it great if not for the sex scene.
-
Hmm, you REALLY think severed arms, shattered arms and legs and impaled necks are a MUST for todays youth?
If true that scares the daylights out of me!
If this were a Friday the 13th film or whatever I would expect it but the violence in this one went beyond any superhero comics inspired movie that I've seen. Only the scene in the riot was actually depicted to that level of carnage in the comic.
Yes, the last sex scene was a bit more prolonged that I expected after the earlier one was so short. The religious undertone of the movie was another point that Moore did touch on as well and I think Snyder tried to echo it by using this Leonard Cohen song. The lady I was with is a very religious person and I was surprised she wasn't upset by the song or scene when we talked later. In fact it wasn't even mentioned! The violence and especially Ozymandias' 'God complex' bothered her. I was glad I got to see the film with someone not familiar with the comic to get a fresh perspective on book I've know for a long long time!
-
while the Leonard Cohen song uses Biblical references, it is NOT a religious song. It's a song about how powerful the memories can be of a sexual relationship. There's David references, but they are references -- it's not actually about David and Bathsheba.
I had gotten so used to hearing the song used in movies that I'd not actually listened to or read the lyrics in a long time. If you look at the lyrics and apply them to Dan and Laurie's situation, it actually fits better than it seems.
Having said that, my family went opening weekend. My wife, myself and my 15 and 12 year old sons. The 15 year old really, really wanted to see the movie, as he is a big fan of V for Vendetta. (he saw the movie first, then devoured the book and liked both of them). I was the only one who had read the book. I probably had the weakest reaction of them all, and I liked it well enough. My 12 year old did not care for the violence, and we sent him out for refills during the two sex scenes (they gross him out). My 15 year old was thrilled by the whole package. My wife appreciated the story and ideas, but thought the violence and Dr. Manhattan's penis were overdone. But all three of them indicated that they'd go to it again if they got the opportunity.
-
They need something like TV has at the start -
"Warning - Graphic scenes of brutal violence and sex" or something.
I'm totally against censorship but I do believe people should have a rough idea of what they are getting into before it starts. Personally I wouldn't want anyone under 14 or 15 ever seeing this unless they were mature enough to handle it.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Kozmo - especially on the Cohen song. Like Dylan I admire his lyrics but I'm not a fan of his delivery. I hadn't looked into the actually lyrics of this particular song.
-Yoc
-
I thought the movie was good- even very good- but not great. I'm not sure if we really needed an adaptation of Watchmen; but if we were going to get one it was probably as close and faithful as we were ever going to get.
I thought the soundtrack was wonderful; even if it seems I'm the only human being on the planet who has somehow avoided every movie that had used the Cohen song. I had never heard it before in my life and to me it fit perfectly- see kozmo's comments, though.
Perhaps it's because I've read the book so many times, but Dr. Manhattan's exposure was a non-issue for me. I was aware it was there, but it just didn't register as important for the most part.
-
I've read a couple of reviews that felt the music was 'predictable' but I thought most of the sound track was quite fitting from a cultural 'that point in time' angle. 'Flight of the Valkyries' being an obvious nod to Apocalypse Now. 'Hallelujah' was the one song that likely could have been any song that was fitting for the scene. The sound track wont win any awards, heck the film could easily be shut out of any at all, but I did like it in the end. I just wish it were a little less intense.
I understand Snyder has plans for a 3-4hr 'Director's Cut' dvd down he line.
-Yoc
-
They need something like TV has at the start -
"Warning - Graphic scenes of brutal violence and sex" or something.
I'm totally against censorship but I do believe people should have a rough idea of what they are getting into before it starts. Personally I wouldn't want anyone under 14 or 15 ever seeing this unless they were mature enough to handle it.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Kozmo - especially on the Cohen song. Like Dylan I admire his lyrics but I'm not a fan of his delivery. I hadn't looked into the actually lyrics of this particular song.
-Yoc
I really don't go to that many movies, but isn't there a RATING system (G, PG, PG-13, R, etc.) that does EXACTLY that, Yoc? If Watchmen is rated R, I think that's a BIG attention getter to folks that they shouldn't be expecting Bambi or Snow White. People ARE given a very GOOD idea of what they're getting in for, so complaining about nudity or language in an "R" rated film is a little self-serving. If it came as a surprise it is only because you weren't paying attention. I mean I have NOT seen the film and, as I said, I pay VERY little attention to movies, but even I knew that there was full-frontal nudity and sex scenes. So, what's the beef? I can't see how it could be news to anybody and it should have been taken into consideration BEFORE buying the tickets, not afterward. Afterward, the subject can be, "did it work?" or "was it well done", but the fact of it HAS to be a given at this point.
2
-
I am totally looking forward to the Director's Cut... I think the story lacked certain necessary thematic concepts that Moore used the Tales of the Black Freighter to convey, and as I understand it, this will be interwoven into the DVD. As far as the the theatrical release, I really liked it, didn't think the violence was overdone, and thought the sex scenes were fitting, and no longer in movie time than they were in panel time... The cleaver scene within Rorschach's origin was an understandable departure from the Moore version, given the visual impact necessary to convey the psychological impact of the event on Rorschach's mentality. the weakest moment for me was Tricky Dick's speech at the end, concerning the nations of the world uniting against Dr. Manhattan... that was somewhat laughable. Overall, I gave it 4 out of 5 stars for plot and delivery, 3 out of five for scting, and 5 out of 5 for faithfulness to the source material's intent, given the time restrictions of theatrical release...
On a side note, I went with my girlfriend (yeah, the living reason that I am so seldom seen or heard from these days), who went in blind, having never read the book, nor knowing anything concerning the story. She liked it, and immediately wanted to read the comic! Hopefully, this is an average reaction, and this movie will introduce to a lot of non-comics people the notion that comics are not just "funny books" anymore (much as the comic initially did upon release for most comic readers of the day).
-
Totally agree with Jim on the rating thing. Watchmen was rated R for graphic violence and strong sexual content... It said so on the movie poster in the lobby.
-
Ok Ok, yes it IS rated 'R' and no, I did not pay attention. No need, I'm an adult and went with an adult. But I was shocked at the violence all the same. I don't see a lot of new films anymore. Since finding TCM I'm happy with my 'old movies' where you didn't need to worry about getting covered in blood watching something. If what I saw in Watchmen is a typical R rated film these days I'm happy to stay away. I wonder... Is today's 'R' a lot more graphic than an 'R' from 10-15 yrs ago?
I truly think Hitchcock had it right when he said something along the lines of you scare people more with what you Don't show than what you do. ie 'Less is more.'
The alley scene was soooo far over the top violence it really turned me off. It was worse than the opening death of The Comedian (which happened almost off screen in the comic) but was done blow for blow in the movie.
Not to sound completely anti-violence - I loved 'Kill-Bill 1 and 2' and Tarentino in general but I knew what to expect with him.
I guess I went into Watchmen thinking I knew what to expect having read the comic. The prison riot wasn't a shock though the change from blowtorch to angle iron cutter was - but that's neither here nor there. I should have known better as '300' was just as violent and also by Snyder.
I always felt the Watchmen comic was pretty tame violence wise - the movie isn't. I guess that it's my hang-up in the end.
-Yoc
-
Yes it was rated R. Yes I knew their would be nudity and maybe a sex scene. No that was not going to keep me from seeing the movie. My big complaint was the playing of a song that I do not know how to describe. It was not really a religious song and may on its own be offensive I tried to tune it out. But playing Halleluja during a sex scene was very offensive and not expected. Violence in a violent movie sure, and graphic to suit today's audience. I just do not believe sex scenes are ever really "needed" in any movie below soft porn. It is always gratuitous. I would not complain about violence in a violent movie or sex scenes in soft porn or either in an erotic thriller. It is the throwing it in for titilation that I object to.
-
Yes it was rated R. Yes I knew their would be nudity and maybe a sex scene. No that was not going to keep me from seeing the movie. My big complaint was the playing of a song that I do not know how to describe. It was not really a religious song and may on its own be offensive I tried to tune it out. But playing Halleluja during a sex scene was very offensive and not expected. Violence in a violent movie sure, and graphic to suit today's audience. I just do not believe sex scenes are ever really "needed" in any movie below soft porn. It is always gratuitous. I would not complain about violence in a violent movie or sex scenes in soft porn or either in an erotic thriller. It is the throwing it in for titilation that I object to.
Still having not seen the movie, Eric, I thought I'd check out the "controversy" of the song/sex intermix. Here's what the director had to say about it:
Zack Snyder: "There are two Leonard Cohen
-
I'm sorry Narf, I'm still amazed the song bothers you more than the violence of the alley scene.
I'm not picking on just you Narf. Today's society being so oblivious to the pain of our fellow man is a sad state of being. Not just this movie but life in general. *sigh*
I think I've figured out one part of why that scene bugged me though...
The fact that here we have supposedly our 'heroes' of the movie falling deeply in love just seconds after BRUTALLY KILLING at least two street thugs minutes before! And don't say it was self-defence either. Never for a second were they in any real danger both we and they always knew it.
It all goes back to today's dark 'anti-heroes' that have taken over from what I feel were the real heroes of yesterday. Do we really need all our heroes to 'kill'em first and let god sort them out'? (As the t-shirt and bumper stick say, no offence meant to Narf or any other religious folks here)
Jim, thanks for that interesting Snyder quote. I'm not exactly sure what he meant by the scene being 'ridiculous' though. I guess I'd have to see it again to pick up on it. The shooting flames from Archie perhaps? *shrug*
-Yoc
-
My point on the violence not being bothersome is it being a violent film so violence expected. I have no need for it to be graphic but do think it was needed for today's audience. I agree that the fact it would be needed for today's audience is a big problem. I know that it may seem heartless but I have no problem with killing violent criminals even street thugs. The good to society would outweigh the bad to the individual. How many people would be saved by the loss of one bad person? How many fewer people would turn to violent crime if they knew the consequences that others had experienced? I think the loss of innocent life would be reduced by much greater numbers than the loss of those not innocent. I am more about protecting the innocent.
I am not sure I understand the ridiculous statement about the music either. I just think it showed lack of sensitivity to those of faith. Then again there may not be that many of faith going to the movie.
-
Jim, thanks for that interesting Snyder quote. I'm not exactly sure what he meant by the scene being 'ridiculous' though. I guess I'd have to see it again to pick up on it. The shooting flames from Archie perhaps? *shrug*
-Yoc
You must remember that I'm replying from a position of ignorance re the movie, but my "take" on it is that they didn't so much "fall deeply in love" as just used each other as a release - sort of an obligatory "sex scene" if you will. The "ridiculous" part is EXACTLY what you were reacting to, and, as I read Snyder's quote, it was EXACTLY how he wanted you to view the scene. It was out of place and unwarranted. The song's lyrics, once you get past the refrain, are completely ironic. I'm a Leonard Cohen fan and even have that song on my iTunes. Here're the lyrics, MINUS all of the Hallelujas:
Now I've heard there was a secret chord
That David played, and it pleased the Lord
But you don't really care for music, do you?
It goes like this
The fourth, the fifth
The minor fall, the major lift
The baffled king composing Hallelujah
Your faith was strong but you needed proof
You saw her bathing on the roof
Her beauty and the moonlight overthrew you
She tied you
To a kitchen chair
She broke your throne, and she cut your hair
And from your lips she drew the Hallelujah
Baby I have been here before
I know this room, I've walked this floor
I used to live alone before I knew you.
I've seen your flag on the marble arch
Love is not a victory march
It's a cold and it's a broken Hallelujah
There was a time you let me know
What's really going on below
But now you never show it to me, do you?
And remember when I moved in you
The holy dove was moving too
And every breath we drew was Hallelujah
You say I took the name in vain
I don't even know the name
But if I did, well really, what's it to you?
There's a blaze of light
In every word
It doesn't matter which you heard
The holy or the broken Hallelujah
I did my best, it wasn't much
I couldn't feel, so I tried to touch
I've told the truth, I didn't come to fool you
And even though
It all went wrong
I'll stand before the Lord of Song
With nothing on my tongue but Hallelujah
Especially telling is the "I did my best, it wasn't much / I couldn't feel, so I tried to touch"
The entire encounter seems to be meant to be read as farce rather than any real emotional involvement. Joe Namath shouting "I'm going to Disneyland" after the SuperBowl victory. Owl and Silk saying "Let's make love" after beating the bad guys. It's sort of what's expected, so they did it. Cohen's song, despite the satiric chorus that bothers you so, Eric, seems to be meant to accentuate that irony. I don't think Cohen's lyrics are in any way aimed at or a reflection of religion, but rather use the word with its connotations of ecstasy.
again, my 2
-
No 'Tower of Song' that one.
-
I guess most people can not appreciate how personal some of us take our relationships with God. I guess there was no intent at being offensive just ignorance.
-
I guess most people can not appreciate how personal some of us take our relationships with God. I guess there was no intent at being offensive just ignorance.
Narf, I in absolutely NO way meant to be offensive.
Your personal relationship with God should be simply that - YOUR relationship with YOUR God. Nothing I could say or do SHOULD be able to alter that relationship. Nor should our "ignorance" (as you so gently put it) be any cause for offense. And if a movie can change that relationship, it must have been one hell of a film (pun intended).
Peace, Jim (|:{>
-
Hey Jim,
I'm pretty sure Narf wasn't speaking of us but Snyder, right Narf?
So has anyone seen the 'Motion Comic' version DC put out not long ago?
Done in Flash it's a lot better than I expected. It's not 'true animation' but it showed some creative touches given the limitations.
The only real criticism I can point to is the use of a single male (and very good) actor for ALL the parts - including female parts. If only they had sprung for second actress to do them I'd give it a big thumbs up. And seeing it underlined the lame squid invasion that Moore used. I'm still puzzled as to why he couldn't have done something, anything better than it. I know some critics thought the Snyder ending wasn't much better but I found it very effective. It got Doc M off of Earth and out of Ozy's hair while placing the US and Russia on a level playing field.
-Yoc
-
Absolutely no reference to anyone here being ingnorant only to Snyder and Cohen. And it does not affect my relationship any more than someone disrespecting my wife or mother. That would be the analogy. Things like that affect me, and even more so my wife, as if you were disrespecting a spouse or parent. That is how we feel about our relationship with God and what the songwriter and director do not recognize. Thus the ignorance referring to lack of knowledge not evil intent.
-
Disclosure: I have zero interest in the movie, since Watchmen never struck me as a particularly compelling story. So, I haven't seen it, and I'm probably not going to talk about anything plot related. You've been warned...
Something interesting that I recently stumbled across in one of John McWhorter's books is the idea that there are discrete "levels" of formality in relationships, and language-based awkwardness or offense tends to arise when one party "jumps" more than one level at a time. As a polite example, when one addresses their friends as "ladies and gentlemen," it's either taken as a joke or feels odd. I wonder if that's a big factor, here, where one's relationship with the story affects their reaction to key incidents.
I point this out, because often when I mention disliking Watchmen among other fans, I'm told that I didn't "get it," and that a lot of the story was meant to be ironic (and, thus...uhm...I wasn't supposed to enjoy it, I guess). In the context of irony, it seems like the objectionable scenes actually fit better with the story, especially when I (vaguely) recall Moore back then talking about how superheroes were all really fetishists repressing sexual and violent tendencies.
That's not to excuse it. Something I've recently been discussing with friends is the idea that a creator needs to somehow "earn" the right to be vulgar first by gaining the audience's trust and second by integrating it with the rest of the routine. I use George Carlin as an example of someone who went VERY far out of his way to earn the trust of his audience, and (with the exception of people who are genuinely offended by concepts themselves) could therefore get away with using whatever sort of language or metaphors he chose. Contrast with someone like Dane Cook, who randomly blurts out profanity and talks about sex.
Heh. For those who'll say that sex and violence is "real"? Well, first, I question what reality such people live in, because around here, both those things are frowned upon in polite company. And second, maybe creators need to earn the right to use reality in general...
Anyway, what goes for standup comedy, because of the different structure, goes double for drama, in my eyes. Since the goal is to keep the audience's attention inside the created world, elements that are too discordant at once (see my original McWhorter idea--you didn't think I'd forgotten, did you?) pull you out too quickly, because there's not enough trust built.
Am I closer to the target on the scenes in question? Because it sounds like the real complaint is that the narrative didn't support the scene and that the scene was too prominent, rather than itself offensive. In a different movie, everybody seems to agree, there wouldn't have been anything wrong. To me, that sounds like the movie fails as a work, not allowing you to suspend disbelief.
(Meanwhile, I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea of Watchmen being supposedly "unfilmable." It seems straightforward to me, once you eliminate the supporting documentation that, in Moore's on words, was "filler." Because he sold the series as twelve issues, but could only come up with six issues' worth of script, in case anyone was curious.)
-
The entire point and impetus behind Watchmen is the deconstruction of superhero mythology and methodology. Moore asked the question "What kind of people would dress up at night in skintight minimalist attire and go out and beat up bad guys?" Answer: The mentally unstable, sado-masochists, fetishists, thrill-seekers, and attention mongers.
The sex scene after combat is part and parcel of why Silk Spectre and the Owl do what they do. I can understand why it wouldn't be palatable for some, I can even understand how some could take offense to it... but I don't understand how you can say it isn't part of the film, or that it's inclusion in the film somehow invalidates the worth of the film as a whole. Watchmen is what it is. What it is not is compromising. Alan Moore, having asked the question, wrote and scripted the answer as best he could, and Zack Snyder adapted the book as best he could. Both did a great job, IMNSHO...
-
Some very interesting points JC and Cimm.
Thanks for sharing them.
:)
-
The entire point and impetus behind Watchmen is the deconstruction of superhero mythology and methodology. Moore asked the question "What kind of people would dress up at night in skintight minimalist attire and go out and beat up bad guys?" Answer: The mentally unstable, sado-masochists, fetishists, thrill-seekers, and attention mongers.
The sex scene after combat is part and parcel of why Silk Spectre and the Owl do what they do. I can understand why it wouldn't be palatable for some, I can even understand how some could take offense to it... but I don't understand how you can say it isn't part of the film, or that it's inclusion in the film somehow invalidates the worth of the film as a whole. Watchmen is what it is. What it is not is compromising. Alan Moore, having asked the question, wrote and scripted the answer as best he could, and Zack Snyder adapted the book as best he could. Both did a great job, IMNSHO...
You state my thoughts very well, Cimmerian.
If done faithfully, the film SHOULD be an Anti-Hero statement and SHOULD be offensive. I think that Moore's intent was to make superhero fans rethink their unabashed love of the genre. The fact that we're having this (or any discussion) about the series/movie is proof of his efficacy. It is NOT a simple story and, despite what JC (or Moore) says about the comic within the comic, I think it, The Black Freighter, adds considerably to his imagined milieu and, if you are familiar with the Judy Collins song, Pirate Jenny, "The Black Freighter" takes on even more weight. The fact that pirate comics, a VERY small sub-genre in real comic book history, are the dominant genre in the Watchmen world is Moore's way of pointing out that fans are always going to focus on SOMETHING, even if the genre is self-limiting - a point that he is trying (I think) to make about superhero comics, too.
One of the very best things, IMNSHO also, about the comic was the dramatic contrast between Moore's script and Dave Gibbon's "sanitized" artwork. A lot of the depth of the story is the tension between Gibbon's sort of "Curt Swan/Murphy Anderson-clean" art and what he's drawing. Can you imagine Curt Swan drawing full frontal male nudity? Or a love scene?
JC - I understand what you mean about trusting a performer/creator. We can accept (and explore) more from a trusted source because we ultimately believe that the journey will pay dividends worthy of the effort. I, personally, place Moore very much in the George Carlin camp of someone who earned my trust before Watchmen. Of course, I was watching him develop from the beginning (I read V for Vendetta in the British Warrior Comics as it was being created) and was very willing to give myself over to his premise and his story, trusting that he would play fair. I think Watchmen is still one of the greatest comic series ever created, and Moore, despite my not understanding the man at all as a human being, one of the best comic writers around. I loved his America's Best series for Wildstorm, although he lost me on Promethea - but the artwork on that series was stupendous - so even that paid off for me.
Watchmen the comic (and apparently the film) is not to everyone's taste. As Cimmerian32 said, it is what it is, and to criticize the film for being true to the comic is rather pointless. Having not seen the film either, I'm in no position to address the fitness of the sex scene to the story, but from what I've read, the director intended it to be disconcerting and he seems to have done the job well. Again, the fact that it's being discussed and that some viewers found it unsettling is proof that both Moore and Snyder touched on something raw in the superhero mythos. I say, bravo! We're talking about it and that has to be a good thing.
Peace, Jim (|:{>
-
if you are familiar with the Judy Collins song, Pirate Jenny, "The Black Freighter" takes on even more weight.
Minor nitpick time: The song "Pirate Jenny" was actually from the Threepenny Opera. A version by Judy Collins sounds interesting, though. (The Watchmen soundtrack album has Nina Simone's version of the song.)
-
if you are familiar with the Judy Collins song, Pirate Jenny, "The Black Freighter" takes on even more weight.
Minor nitpick time: The song "Pirate Jenny" was actually from the Threepenny Opera. A version by Judy Collins sounds interesting, though. (The Watchmen soundtrack album has Nina Simone's version of the song.)
You're right, Eric,
Believe it or not, I USED to know that. The synapses just ain't what they used to be. And Nina Simone's version will be new to me, so I'll definitely check it out. Thanks for the "nitpick".
Peace, Jim (|:{>
-
I've read even the producers weren't sure how to market this movie. You'll note the trailers never really tell you what the film is about. Not that it could be done in a 30 second spot anyways without over simplifying it. In the end they went for the old standby - big special fx shots for the 'wow' factor. They did quickly introduce us to the characters and let us know this is an alternate time-line film but that's about it. Snyder making them tons of cash on '300' is the only reason this film gets made and for that I'm grateful to him. There's a lot more right about the film than wrong, that's for sure.
Gibbon's has confirmed there is a 'director's cut' version and he's already recorded his audio commentary track for it. It's rumoured to include the Pirate comic within the main story as well. So one wonders are they planning a quick release of the dvd?
--------
But I still feel the violence of the film far outweighs the sex for being jarring and out of place. Now if Moore had shown that level of violence in the comic I wouldn't have said boo about it. If he was really trying to deconstruct the superhero myth perhaps HE SHOULD have had Snyder's violence levels to show a true reflection of just what these heroes were actually doing to their foes. But who knows? Perhaps DC had a tight leash on how much could and couldn't be depicted? After all it wasn't a Vertigo book. But as Jim says, Gibbon's clean and sanitized art style is almost at odds with Moore's message. I think it would be fun to see how some other artists might have approached doing the book... and the first that comes to mind is below.
--------
If you want to see a different take on the same idea of deconstructing superheroes I highly recommend Pat Mills and Kevin O'Neill's 'Marshal Law'. Here the creators really do blow up the idea. Heroes as weapons of war and the need for a Marshal to keep them under control (often by killing them) once they returned from Nam is done with an amazingly black sense of humour poking fun at DC and Marvel's biggest names. The artwork is totally kinetic/primitive filled with the anger of the 'hero' and effectively conveys many of the ideas Moore used in Watchmen but with a deeply black humour and ULTRA VIOLENCE though out. I've been a fan of the book since Epic first launched him in the 80s and the book has bounced from publisher to publisher while keeping true to the style and ideas it wants to present. But be warning - this is truly a violent book!
Thanks again to all for sharing their thought on Watchmen, etc - it's been a fascinating read.
:)
-
JC - I understand what you mean about trusting a performer/creator. We can accept (and explore) more from a trusted source because we ultimately believe that the journey will pay dividends worthy of the effort. I, personally, place Moore very much in the George Carlin camp of someone who earned my trust before Watchmen. Of course, I was watching him develop from the beginning (I read V for Vendetta in the British Warrior Comics as it was being created) and was very willing to give myself over to his premise and his story, trusting that he would play fair.
Which is fair, but I've never felt that trust, myself. I can follow the stories and my analysis of the details seems to match up to what everybody else sees, but to me, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It reminds me too much of surrealists, whose writings rail against any rules that they didn't themselves create, interspersed with strings of expletives and insults hurled at the people who "just don't get it" (by which everybody always seems to mean those who disagree with them...).
I don't begrudge anybody their enjoyment of it, of course (just like I don't mock people who buy the Escher coffee table books), but it's just not for me.
I think Watchmen is still one of the greatest comic series ever created, and Moore, despite my not understanding the man at all as a human being, one of the best comic writers around. I loved his America's Best series for Wildstorm, although he lost me on Promethea - but the artwork on that series was stupendous - so even that paid off for me.
The undercurrent that I've always gotten from Moore has consistently been that comic books--especially superhero comic books--are embarrassing and that there's something fundamentally wrong with the concept. Yeah, I know that's not really (quite) his thesis, but it's the vibe I get.
And as with most modern creators, amidst the deconstruction, I'm left wondering, if masks and cavern headquarters and sanctity of life embarrass you so darn much, why not show us how to make it work, rather than simply declare it wrong and remind us that we're somehow more naive than you?
Watchmen the comic (and apparently the film) is not to everyone's taste. As Cimmerian32 said, it is what it is, and to criticize the film for being true to the comic is rather pointless. Having not seen the film either, I'm in no position to address the fitness of the sex scene to the story, but from what I've read, the director intended it to be disconcerting and he seems to have done the job well. Again, the fact that it's being discussed and that some viewers found it unsettling is proof that both Moore and Snyder touched on something raw in the superhero mythos. I say, bravo! We're talking about it and that has to be a good thing.
I'm not bashing it, beyond explaining why I don't have an opinion on the scene, and I hope that nobody reads my comments as somehow trying to convince people to dislike the story.
My real goal was to see if I could find out where the failure was. It could be in the viewers' expectations or it could literally have been obscene and offensive. But from the sound of it, it seems more as if the movie just fails to bring you inside the story and then changes gears too quickly. If that's the case, then we'd get to wonder if it was the director's intention, as seems suggested from the quote.
Sorry for pushing the thread in other directions. Living in an engineering kind of world, I don't often get the chance to mess with big ideas about storytelling.
(And Yoc, as to explaining the story in thirty seconds, it's not THAT complicated. A murder investigation leads to forcibly-retired vigilantes following the trail to a global conspiracy. See? Didn't even have to spoil the ending.)
-
I can follow the stories and my analysis of the details seems to match up to what everybody else sees, but to me, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It reminds me too much of surrealists, whose writings rail against any rules that they didn't themselves create, interspersed with strings of expletives and insults hurled at the people who "just don't get it" (by which everybody always seems to mean those who disagree with them...).
I've never received those vibes from Moore, JC. Sometimes I can't connect with his ideas or don't particularly want to explore the path he's travelling, but that's true of most authors, both in books and comics.
The undercurrent that I've always gotten from Moore has consistently been that comic books--especially superhero comic books--are embarrassing and that there's something fundamentally wrong with the concept. Yeah, I know that's not really (quite) his thesis, but it's the vibe I get.
And as with most modern creators, amidst the deconstruction, I'm left wondering, if masks and cavern headquarters and sanctity of life embarrass you so darn much, why not show us how to make it work, rather than simply declare it wrong and remind us that we're somehow more naive than you?
I believe he DID do that! Read Tom Strong, Greyshirt, U.S. Angel, and my two favorites, Top 10 and Jack B. Quick, the latter being one of my favorite comic characters of the last 20 years. If you haven't read either of the last two, you'll have to do it and then let me know what you think. I'd be curious.
Sorry for pushing the thread in other directions. Living in an engineering kind of world, I don't often get the chance to mess with big ideas about storytelling.
Hey, after the detour the "how to read a JVJ data card" went on, this is a little bump in the road, and certainly more pertinent.
Good talking with you. (|:{>
-
LOL,
JC, there's a bit more than that going on but yes, your synopsis could have been a 30 second commercial.
Thinking on it now I agree, Snyder didn't quite have me inside the film but it's a very unusual place where I knew sooo much about what was going to happen, etc that I found myself on the outside of the film thinking 'ok, I wonder how they do the next scene and what they leave out' instead of just enjoying it for what it was. I'll have to give the DVD a try to give Snyder a second chance. I curious what he left on the floor as well.
-Yoc
-
I had not read the maxi series since it originally came out. I was able to enjoy the movie on its own merits. Like I mentioned even my very non comic book wife enjoyed it a lot until the song. Looking on the movie from the outside is not necessarily a negative. As someone else mentioned the feeling of detachment may be intenional.
-
from jcolag -
... I (vaguely) recall Moore back then talking about how superheroes were all really fetishists repressing sexual and violent tendencies.
I hate to back-track this topic too far, but I couldn't ignore this comment.
Would I be alone then in viewing Superheroes as, for the most part, being something that a person could use as an inspiration in how to live their own life? I'm not referring to the flash-in-the-pan violent heroes who never last more than a few short years, but characters like Batman, Superman, Captain America, Spiderman, Green Lantern and all the other characters that have had strong moral stances AND have stuck to them throughout their history, regardless of the evil they've faced (disregarding deviations from those morals to support small changes in direction that never stick).
The statement Moore makes about superheroes, from my point of view, seems to be coming from someone who has their own "issues" to deal with. Any type of "fetish" that could be found in superheroes in general is either coming from a specific artist who worked on a book and not so much the characters themselves, or from reviewers who try too hard to find things to talk about and put "repressed tendencies" into places where it doesn't belong and was never intended to be. I just can't imagine that Bill Finger & Bob Kane were sitting around saying "There's not enough homo-erotic tension in our books, how about we have Batman run around with a boy who wears green underwear?" You know, sometimes accidents happen, and a guy cranking-out 20-30 pages a month might mess-up and put a hand where he didn't intend it to be or draw something innocently that might appear to be a body part if you look too hard and squint a little.
Sure, there has been some fine examples of "fetishes" in comics. The early Wonder Woman stories spring to mind with their repeated depictions of WW tied-up by guys she should have been able to knock-out with but the flick of her finger, but that seems to be more of the exception than the rule, as far as I can see.
And while I'm at it ...
... when I mention disliking Watchmen among other fans, I'm told that I didn't "get it," and that a lot of the story was meant to be ironic (and, thus...uhm...I wasn't supposed to enjoy it, I guess).
I took forever to finally give Watchmen (the comic) a chance simply because I wanted to know why, nearly ten years afterwards, people were still talking about it. I have to admit, it was impressive (except the pirate stuff, which I found boring and usually skipped) and I really liked the ending where the evil plot is revealed. However, I don't find that the book holds-up well for a repeat reading because I know how it ends, and without the mystery of the story, there is no story to read. Contrast that with my opinion of "The Sixth Sense", a movie that was unfortunately spoiled for me long before I ever saw it. Even though the "mystery" of that film was gone for me, I was able to watch it from a different point-of-view, picking-out the scenes where people who didn't realize what was going-on were lead to believe what M&M Nighty-Night Shamalamadingdong wanted them to believe. It was still a fun movie to watch because I was able to see how the viewers, seeing it for their first time, were fooled into believing something that wasn't true.
Back to the Watchmen movie: I think it's a shame that whenever the movie comes-out on DVD (I won't pay to see a movie in a theater anymore), based on what I'm hearing here, I won't be able to watch it with my kids around. For better or worse, I am more mindful of my children seeing scenes containing "adult situations", to put it mildly, than I am of their viewing any level of violence because they don't mimic the violence they see on tv (I'm with them all day long, so I'm not missing anything). And as far as "language" goes, they've heard more than enough from their sometimes-overly-frustrated parents that, if they haven't picked it up by now, seeing one film won't hurt them in the least. If something was changed from the comic to the movie, I was hoping that the sexual situations would have been glossed-over somewhat or just hinted at.
-
Would I be alone then in viewing Superheroes as, for the most part, being something that a person could use as an inspiration in how to live their own life?
Personally, I've always felt that comics did/could do a wonderful job of celebrating the good in people, and maybe convincing a few people to follow suit. I also don't think that superheroes (in terms of personality) are particularly unrealistic, having known more than one "crusader for justice," though usually more limited in scope. So no, I don't think you're alone, but the people running the comics industry have certainly taken a contrary stance for the last few years.
The statement Moore makes about superheroes, from my point of view, seems to be coming from someone who has their own "issues" to deal with.
Totally agreed. In fact, I brought it up with the intent of sneering at the idea. I happen to think that the idea of a secret identity is somewhat dubious and even dangerous in some cases, but it's not because I think the people who use them are sick.
Apart from that, though, I suspect (and I realize that this is an unfair, sweeping generalization) that Moore might have trouble coming to terms with superheroes because he's, well, European. Throughout most of the Old World, the political climate is that the people, whatever their liberties or autonomy, are subjects to the government. The United States has long been rushing in that direction as well, but it's not TOO long ago that the idea of professional law enforcers was absurd, and the victim of a crime hired a prosecuting attorney. That's the tradition, I think, that bred the superhero, and I can see why people in oligarchical environments would find it implausible.
Add in the occasional misstep (as you point out) such as a prepubescent abrobat running around in his underwear or a totally fearless and honest who hides his identity, and the field is ripe for misinterpretation. But it's important to make it clear that it IS misinterpretation and not a revelation.
-
LOL,
JC, there's a bit more than that going on but yes, your synopsis could have been a 30 second commercial.
Well, obviously. But then, there's more going on in any movie. But when you pare off the atmospheric material, the alternate history, and the subplots, that's the story you're left with. Assuming that we don't want to give away the ending or explain the alternate universe in a commercial, did I leave out anything significant?
Yes, we could argue about themes and the like, but that's supposed to emerge from the work, not be spoon-fed ahead of time.
(And really, how hard could it possibly be to sell a story about a minor mystery leading into a massive conspiracy?)
-
I can follow the stories and my analysis of the details seems to match up to what everybody else sees, but to me, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It reminds me too much of surrealists, whose writings rail against any rules that they didn't themselves create, interspersed with strings of expletives and insults hurled at the people who "just don't get it" (by which everybody always seems to mean those who disagree with them...).
I've never received those vibes from Moore, JC. Sometimes I can't connect with his ideas or don't particularly want to explore the path he's travelling, but that's true of most authors, both in books and comics.
And it may be entirely my fault for interpreting it that way. And I should also point out that there's nothing wrong with enjoying it, even that is what you see. I mean, it's not like I get ticked at people for buying Escher prints for the office.
And as with most modern creators, amidst the deconstruction, I'm left wondering, if masks and cavern headquarters and sanctity of life embarrass you so darn much, why not show us how to make it work, rather than simply declare it wrong and remind us that we're somehow more naive than you?
I believe he DID do that! Read Tom Strong, Greyshirt, U.S. Angel, and my two favorites, Top 10 and Jack B. Quick, the latter being one of my favorite comic characters of the last 20 years. If you haven't read either of the last two, you'll have to do it and then let me know what you think. I'd be curious.
I haven't yet, but I'll check it out when I get the chance.
Is Tom Strong related to Mason's boy heroes by that name, by the way? I recently read the first book in the series, and probably learned more about the American Revolution than I ever did from a class or textbook. Very highly recommended, and that reminds me that I need to find a copy of the second book.
-
(And really, how hard could it possibly be to sell a story about a minor mystery leading into a massive conspiracy?)
Hmmm? You're right, JC. As I recall, there was this little "break-in" at the Watergate Hotel....
(|:{>
-
I believe he DID do that! Read Tom Strong, Greyshirt, U.S. Angel, and my two favorites, Top 10 and Jack B. Quick, the latter being one of my favorite comic characters of the last 20 years. If you haven't read either of the last two, you'll have to do it and then let me know what you think. I'd be curious.
I haven't yet, but I'll check it out when I get the chance.
Is Tom Strong related to Mason's boy heroes by that name, by the way? I recently read the first book in the series, and probably learned more about the American Revolution than I ever did from a class or textbook. Very highly recommended, and that reminds me that I need to find a copy of the second book.
Tom Strong is the superhero WITHOUT the luggage. Several aspects of this thread have implied that Moore might be incapable of writing that hero. Tom Strong, with his strong echoes of the classic Boy Heroes of fiction, proves that Moore can write just about anything he sets his mind to. For those with reservations about his more edgy work, I heartily recommend this.
ps. It's 100% "PG" - most of it "G".
(|:{>
-
What I meant to ask, regarding Tom Strong, is whether the character is adapted from the 1900s novels by Alfred Bishop Mason, historical fiction starring a boy hero named Tom Strong (and his descendants, since the books cover many years) who stands just off-center of American history. The books (at least if the first in the series is any indication) are excellent.
-
The Tom Strong I've read is loosely based on the old Standard character 'Doc Strange' for appearance and is set in the future at some point. I've never read the Mason stories so I can't tell you if they were also an influence. I quite enjoyed the TBP I borrowed from the library and plan on reading more when I can get the chance.
-Yoc
-
I don't know if Tom Strong was really visually based on Doc Strange or not, but could have been. Seems that someone, possibly Jim Steranko, told Moore that his "America's Best Comics" title echoed the comic from Nedor, which led to Moore learning about the Nedor characters. (And he really did...the TERRA OBSCURA stuff definitely uses knowledge about the heroes as plot points.) But their origins are totally different and Tom Strong isn't based on that old prose character, AFAIK.
-
BTW, just saw "Under the Hood" and "Tales of the Black Freighter" tonight. Both were excellent. But try and tell me the ship's captain in the latter wasn't based on Alan Moore...
-
Re: Watchmen
3 tickets, 1 popcorn, 2 pops, = $39.50
That, my firends, is ridiculous.
Corollary: Why do teenagers sometimes get into trouble for doing stupid things? Because they can't afford to do anything else!
--Dave
-
What I meant to ask, regarding Tom Strong, is whether the character is adapted from the 1900s novels by Alfred Bishop Mason, historical fiction starring a boy hero named Tom Strong (and his descendants, since the books cover many years) who stands just off-center of American history. The books (at least if the first in the series is any indication) are excellent.
Greetings to all from Paris!
The origin of Moore's Tom Strong has a VERY Victorian "feel" to it, jc, but as I have never read the Tom Strong books, you'd be in a much better position to answer your own question by simply reading the ABC series. Then you can fill us all in. I'd sure like to know.
A Bientot.
Jim (|:{>
ps. The outrageous price of movies these days, the lack of manners in most audiences, and the lack of "Under the Hood" and "The Black Freighter" are what've convinced me to wait for the DVD Director's Cut of Watchmen.
-
I've never been impressed with the Black Freighter subplot but I did watch the 'Under The Hood' segment and thought it was a nice extra to the movie. Quite fun. So Who Was 'Hooded Justice' anyways eh? *hehehe*
-
Hooded Justice was Rolf Muller, a circus strongman. A Watchmen game module confirmed that the Comedian killed him.
-
Oh Rolf! Sure, I should have known it was Rolf.... who the heck is Rolf?!?
???
-
He was shown and talked about in the UNDER THE HOOD backup story in the early issues.