Print

[OtherEric]

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.)

[JVJ]

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 (|:{>

[Yoc]

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.

[John C]

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.)

[JVJ]

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. (|:{>

[Yoc]

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

[narfstar]

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.

[bchat]

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.

[John C]

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.

[John C]

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?)

[John C]

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.

[JVJ]

(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....
(|:{>

[JVJ]

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".

(|:{>

[John C]

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.

[Yoc]

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

[darkmark]

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. 

[darkmark]

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...

[misappear]

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

[JVJ]

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.

[Yoc]

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*

[darkmark]

Hooded Justice was Rolf Muller, a circus strongman.   A Watchmen game module confirmed that the Comedian killed him.

[Yoc]

Oh Rolf!  Sure, I should have known it was Rolf.... who the heck is Rolf?!?

[darkmark]

He was shown and talked about in the UNDER THE HOOD backup story in the early issues.