Watchmen [Archive] - Page 4

Qrazy

03-05-2009, 08:08 PM

Uniting the world against Dr. Manhattan...is hilariously dumb. Espiecially considering how the squid at the end of the book is so representative of the absurdity of the comic book twist ending, and really seems to drive a lot of the themes in. What does this new ending? It's just as ridiculous but it seems to serve absolutely no purpose than just all around sucking.

It seems fitting to me actually in that the world can't really handle the reality of Dr. Manhattan. It's almost natural they unite against him. It's an even more fitting character arc. It also preserves Ozy's core idea of uniting against an external threat although now that idea becomes even more layered since Manhattan is basically a product of human creation (I mean the squid was too but humanity wasn't supposed to think so)... the 'alien' we're fighting thereby comes from within rather than from without. I don't really care about the meta-commentary on the absurdity of the comic book twist ending. It doesn't seem particularly thematically relevant to me. On a narrative level removing the squid does cause a few problems though in that the disappearance of all of those professionals and the writer of the Freighter comics seems to become a moot point. Anyway I don't know how Snyder is going to deal with all that so until I do know it seems like a moot point.

MadMan

03-05-2009, 08:09 PM

Well, yeah, it wouldn't have. Because it provides lots of commentary onto GRAPHIC NOVELS AND COMIC BOOKS. Not films.

The new ending is basically a contrived piece of garbage that seems like it will suck a whole lot of substance out of the film.For the record, I wish that the graphic novel would have ended with Dr. Manhattan leaving, and his last words. While yes the whole thing with Night Owl/Silk Spectre is nice and all, I find it to be a bit pointless. I also find the whole "Hey guess what the fat newspaper guy found the journal, ooooh will he actually use it and expose the truth?" bit to be kind of a lame final twist, as well. If you can really call it a twist. But hey maybe I'll change my mind after I re-read it a second time. I still think its a great read, and I can maybe see what you're saying about the squad being commentary about graphic novels and such but I think I agree more with number8 on the matter.

number8

03-05-2009, 08:16 PM

On a narrative level removing the squid does cause a few problems though in that the disappearance of all of those professionals and the writer of the Freighter comics seems to become a moot point. Anyway I don't know how Snyder is going to deal with all that so until I do know it seems like a moot point.

Answer:

They're not in the film at all, so moot.

Sycophant

03-05-2009, 08:20 PM

Coming from a guy who more admires the Moore source than loves it, it occurs to me that Watchmen is a movie made by Dr. Manhattan; it should've been made by Rorschach.
...
Maybe Watchmen fails because it comes at the end of a cycle of superhero films; maybe it fails because Bryan Singer already did it better with Superman Returns.
...
The movie's all about the jerking-off, not the yawning emptiness and self-loathing that immediately follows. It's pretty. And it means nothing to me.
http://filmfreakcentral.net/screenreviews/watchmen.htm

Watashi

03-05-2009, 08:53 PM

Schager liked it.

number8

03-05-2009, 08:57 PM

Well, here it is. I condensed my thoughts as best as I could. It was hard. (http://www.justpressplay.net/movie-reviews/40-reviews/4957-Watchmen.html)

Qrazy

03-05-2009, 09:09 PM

Answer:

They're not in the film at all, so moot.

Any word on how he'll reincorporate that thread into the DVD version? Because he's splicing in the Freighter comic isn't he?

Qrazy

03-05-2009, 09:11 PM

http://filmfreakcentral.net/screenreviews/watchmen.htm

It must be pretty damn weak if Superman Returns did it better. The first quote sounds about right though. The violence should be brutal, not overly stylized, that's an integral element of the graphic novel.

lovejuice

03-05-2009, 09:15 PM

All my worries are quelled, yet it creates huge problems I did not anticipate (unrelated to my feelings towards the comic).
so what's this hugh problem? since you don't really mention that in the review.

eternity

03-05-2009, 09:16 PM

http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/9729/mywatchmencomic.jpg

Spun Lepton

03-05-2009, 09:45 PM

You must have your head shoved pretty far up your own ass if you actually think Snyder would've been able to retain the comic verbatim.

Ezee E

03-05-2009, 09:45 PM

If only that were funny.

eternity

03-05-2009, 11:13 PM

You must have your head shoved pretty far up your own ass if you actually think Snyder would've been able to retain the comic verbatim.I absolutely would not want that. I just want the new ending to be an equivalent to the old one. The changes that I know of that have been made are removing a lot of substantive relevance. How much of what made Watchmen what it was going to be left if you just keep the story but remove all of the context and commentary?

Barty

03-05-2009, 11:18 PM

I absolutely would not want that. I just want the new ending to be an equivalent to the old one. The changes that I know of that have been made are removing a lot of substantive relevance. How much of what made Watchmen what it was going to be left if you just keep the story but remove all of the context and commentary?

But the new ending doesn't change the relevance or substance.

Spun Lepton

03-05-2009, 11:29 PM

number8

03-05-2009, 11:55 PM

so what's this hugh problem? since you don't really mention that in the review.

I did, actually. It was the structure/acting problems.

eternity

03-06-2009, 12:48 AM

Also, does this new ending sound exactly like the ending of a certain movie that came out 9 months ago?

The Mike

03-06-2009, 01:16 AM

Also, does this new ending sound exactly like the ending of a certain movie that came out 9 months ago?Space Chimps?

number8

03-06-2009, 01:21 AM

Space Chimps?

I think he's referring to Wall-E.

The Mike

03-06-2009, 01:28 AM

I think he's referring to Wall-E.

Damn. I knew it was something I hadn't seen. :lol:

balmakboor

03-06-2009, 02:17 AM

Roger Ebert's second review of the film. (http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/03/were_all_puppets_laurie_im_jus .html)

I finished the graphic novel a short time ago and am very excited to see this. Roger Ebert's review will make it hard to sleep tonight.

Qrazy

03-06-2009, 02:17 AM

I did, actually. It was the structure/acting problems.

Yeah drama has been a consistent problem for Snyder.

balmakboor

03-06-2009, 02:21 AM

I already hate Tree of Life and the Untitled Lincoln Biopic.

Sure. But my love for Megalopolis and Intersteller balances things out.

eternity

03-06-2009, 02:38 AM

I think he's referring to Wall-E.
The Dark Knight.

The world unites in chaos against the hero, Batman or in this case, Dr. Manhattan, who is being framed for the actions of the villain.

number8

03-06-2009, 02:49 AM

I know what you were referring to. I was joking.

eternity

03-06-2009, 02:51 AM

Gotcha.

megladon8

03-06-2009, 06:36 AM

eternity

03-06-2009, 09:35 AM

Watchmen was filled with flaws a plenty, there was some really inconsistent pacing, some things left completely unclear that for the uninitiated made some events seem very random, and other little quirks that show Snyder wasn't totally getting what the book is really all about, but as a standalone film, it is a very good film. I can say pretty convinced that it is a far more accomplished film than The Dark Knight or Iron Man.

76/100

eternity

03-06-2009, 09:36 AM

The squid is not the context or the commentary.

It's certainly a vital part of what makes it work.

Watashi

03-06-2009, 10:21 AM

Still pretty great after a second viewing. Ackerman as Laurie is the biggest flaw, but she wasn't flat-out terrible as some people made her out to be. Her sex scene with Dan is intentionally comical.

Just as I imagined, everytime they showed Doc's blue penis, everyone started to fidget and giggle.

Dead & Messed Up

03-06-2009, 10:51 AM

Just got back.

Thoughts to come later today.

It was intensely satisfying. Not perfect by any stretch, but damned impressive.

Ezee E

03-06-2009, 11:25 AM

Eternity has seen it.

Now this thread can move on.

Kurosawa Fan

03-06-2009, 01:04 PM

megladon8

03-06-2009, 03:32 PM

It's certainly a vital part of what makes it work.

No it wasn't.

I've even said that I thought the squid represented a more outside force bringing humans together, but really, the squid's a MacGuffin.

And on another note...

Ebert saw it a second time and liked it even more. (http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/03/were_all_puppets_laurie_im_jus .html)

number8

03-06-2009, 05:13 PM

I'm compiling an article about significant easter eggs found in the film, to counter MTV's article which offered pretty lame easter eggs. Anyone care to help? These are what I've noticed:

- The energy reactor Ozy and Manhattan worked on was named S.Q.U.I.D.

- Ozy's computer has a folder called "Boys".

- The Outer Limits.

- During Comedian/Veidt's 300-ish fight, Comedian throws his mug at his apartment number, 3001, covering the 1 to form "300".

- The American flag has 51 stars (51st state = Vietnam).

balmakboor

03-06-2009, 05:19 PM

Anthony Lane's a great writer. Boy did he hate Watchmen.

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2009/03/09/090309crci_cinema_lane

number8

03-06-2009, 05:47 PM

Anthony Lane's a great writer. Boy did he hate Watchmen.

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2009/03/09/090309crci_cinema_lane

Great write-up, but Lane's misunderstanding of Moore's writing accidentally sums up what's so terrible about Snyder's film. The heroes in the book are meant to be pompous and fascist, every bit of violence meant to show how unwell these behaviors are. I think the single biggest problem in Snyder's film is that he presents the violence as cool. When Rorschach throws the frying oil on that inmate's face, he's deadpan in the book, to show what is essentially an act of insanity. The movie Rorschach barks as if he's friggin' Dirty Harry, inviting applause from the audience.

Snyder also idiotically takes Rorschach seriously. The guy's a fucking loony! Everything he says--including "abattoir of retarded children"--is meant to be taken as either paranoid or comical. Rorschach's a funny guy: "Possibly homosexual? Must investigate further." There's no trace of this in the film, and he's treated as basically a straight noir character. When I saw the first 20 min, I said to Barty and Watashi that I didn't like the delivery of "human bean juice" because it doesn't seem as jokey as it is in the book. I admitted that I was nitpicking then, but thinking it over, that kind of says it about the movie's missed trajectory.

The movie also doesn't include what I consider THE most important scene in Watchmen: the dinner scene with Rorschach's psychiatrist, his wife and their friends. That's the whole fucking key to the goddamn thing! That's the part in the book where it's really hammered that the violence and Ayn Rand-ness of their actions are damaging to individuals. So yes, Anthony Lane is right on the money, but that's more Snyder's fault than Moore's.

I'm really contemplating doing a second, 2000-word review. Perhaps mixed in with an essay on the book, too. It's gonna take a while, though.

Pop Trash

03-06-2009, 06:44 PM

So is this thing like a more pretentious version of The Incredibles? Every time I read about it, that's what it sounds like.

I'm talking out of my ass here a bit since I've never read the book.

megladon8

03-06-2009, 06:44 PM

So is this thing like a more pretentious version of The Incredibles? Every time I read about it, that's what it sounds like.

I'm talking out of my ass here a bit since I've never read the book.

No...no it's not.

At all.

number8

03-06-2009, 06:53 PM

Well, The Incredibles is influenced by it, and contains a bunch of references.

Watashi

03-06-2009, 06:56 PM

Hate the movie or not, the New Yorker review is appallingly bad.

balmakboor

03-06-2009, 07:23 PM

Hate the movie or not, the New Yorker review is appallingly bad.

I'm not an expert on the novel, but his comment about "The Times They Are A Changin'" being uninspired struck me as odd since it was taken from the novel. I wouldn't call that appallingly bad though. What did Lane get so terribly wrong?

On another note: One of my favorite things in the novel was the references to William Burroughs. Made me want to finally read Nova Express.

Watashi

03-06-2009, 07:28 PM

I'm not an expert on the novel, but his comment about "The Times They Are A Changin'" being uninspired struck me as odd since it was taken from the novel. I wouldn't call that appallingly bad though. What did Lane get so terribly wrong?

On another note: One of my favorite things in the novel was the references to William Burroughs. Made me want to finally read Nova Express.

He writes like a pompous dick. He gives away the entire ending in his review in a snarky "it's just a stupid comic book movie" fashion. That's horrible journalism.

balmakboor

03-06-2009, 07:34 PM

He writes like a pompous dick. He gives away the entire ending in his review in a snarky "it's just a stupid comic book movie" fashion. That's horrible journalism.

I agree with you there. He is definitely full of himself. He definitely doesn't lack self-confidence. I wonder if that's the style New Yorkers (from New York and elsewhere) are in to.

Lane is like the anti-Robin Wood really. Have you ever read Wood? He goes almost ridiculously overboard to sound humble.

I must confess about Lane's Watchmen piece. I decided after a few paragraphs that he was spoiling the show for me and stopped reading.

number8

03-06-2009, 07:45 PM

I'm not an expert on the novel, but his comment about "The Times They Are A Changin'" being uninspired struck me as odd since it was taken from the novel.

It's very uninspired because of the use. "The Times They Are A-Changin'", specifically, isn't even in the main story. The song is used as the slogan of a perfume ad in the book's supplements section. In the movie, it's an opening credits montage where the times are changing from 1940 to 1984. Come on.

D_Davis

03-06-2009, 07:45 PM

I liked that review. I don't know if I agree with what he has to say about the movie, haven't seen it yet, but he does touch upon some interesting criticisms of the book, a book that seems to be far above criticism in many readers' eyes. Now, not being a fan of the book, I can sympathize with his view even if I don't agree with everything he says.

Watashi

03-06-2009, 07:50 PM

Let's not forget, the novel was never subtle to begin with.

number8

03-06-2009, 07:53 PM

It's very uninspired because of the use. "The Times They Are A-Changin'", specifically, isn't even in the main story. The song is used as the slogan of a perfume ad in the book's supplements section. In the movie, it's an opening credits montage where the times are changing from 1940 to 1984. Come on.

Also, Lane made a good point about the use being against Dylan's original lyrics. The song is about moving forward, while in the opening montage it's used to show how the times got worse.

That's interesting, though, because in the book, the use of the song is a satire of Nike's use of Beatles' "Revolution", where something truly well-meaning is debased into a commercial product. So I guess the irony is still there, just not the subtlety.

number8

03-06-2009, 07:55 PM

Let's not forget, the novel was never subtle to begin with.

The fact that I've read the thing 12 times and counting and I discover a new meaning each time says otherwise.

Well, okay, either that or I'm not very perceptive to begin with. But let's not equate the book's arguable subtlety to the film's multimillion dollar hammer.

Watashi

03-06-2009, 11:11 PM

I have to say, I completely agree with 8's take on Rorschach. He should have been more of a sociopath than a "badass".

Dead & Messed Up

03-06-2009, 11:37 PM

I have to say, I completely agree with 8's take on Rorschach. He should have been more of a sociopath than a "badass".

I felt the film painted him as appropriately demented and tragic. One addition at the end of the film

Rorschach whispering "Do it" to Manhattan

seals the deal.

The only moment I didn't care for was the long, drawn-out sequence where he lights the police on fire. The slow motion seemed to fetishize his actions rather than observe them.

Watashi

03-07-2009, 12:21 AM

I felt the film painted him as appropriately demented and tragic. One addition at the end of the film

Rorschach whispering "Do it" to Manhattan

seals the deal.

He is definitely a tragic figure and that scene you mention is heartbreaking. It still doesn't make him necessarily a hero or the "good guy" of the team.

megladon8

03-07-2009, 01:27 AM

I have to agree with Wats in saying that the book was far from subtle, and I would expect no less from the movie.

I just don't like the idea of this glorification of the violence which, in the book, was not meant to be "Batman is a badass kickin' the asses of scumbags" type cool.

Qrazy

03-07-2009, 01:53 AM

eternity

03-07-2009, 02:11 AM

To quote myself from your RT thread:

He's a hero because he has the best of intentions, and of all the Watchmen, is that one most dedicated to truth, justice and a better world. He's just also a sociopath murderous nutjob.

I had a crapload of problems with this movie, Rorschach's portrayal not being one of them.

Meanwhile, on the subject of the violence, I was happy that it was so inconsistent, oddly enough. I was expecting everything to be this glossy sensationalized Zach Snyder-y garbage, but to my delight only some of it was glossy sensationalized Zach Snyder-y garbage. There was still plenty of brutal, raw, un-stylized goodness there.

eternity

03-07-2009, 02:15 AM

Good thing you made such a big fucking deal about an ending you hadn't seen yet.

The ending is still fucking terrible. The entire film is pretty much a complete abomination. But as a standalone film, it's above average-ish.

Weeping_Guitar

03-07-2009, 02:41 AM

There were very few moments watching the film where I didn't just feel like I was simply watching a live action inch for inch replication of the comic. To me it made the film worthwhile but at the same time it kept the film at a distance.

I really feel sorry for people who have no knowledge of the source material before watching the film because I found it quite disjointed and the whole time I felt I had to rely on my times spent with the book to connect everything together. By the end of the graphic novel it really does give the reader an ever increasing sense of unavoidable doom and anihilation which I thought the film really missed. Too often it felt like it was going through a check list of bits it had to fit into the movie. I think no matter who made the film this would have been the hardest part considering how much of the story is character histories. At one point Rorschach is absent for quite a long time even though he is the de facto story teller and at another I had wondered where Manhattan's thread had dissappeared to. Oddly enough the only part of the film that seemed to gain any rhythm was the ending, whose adjustments played out nicely and I liked that it tied back into the characters. Just about the only spot where the ideas and philosophies really connected with the characters' present situation to create pathos.

I think the films best moments were all the montages. Here the film was able to connect together multiple threads at once with which the comic was masterful. So much was accomplished - especially charcter info - in such a brief period. All other scenes, especially the sex and violence were all so overly long that I found myself losing interest within the individual scenes. For instance, even a good scene in the film such as where the Comedian is murdered lost some of it's impact to me by stretching it out on screen. The very brief outburst of the novel kicks things off with such a visceral punch, and the extended scene only seemed to spread out the impact.

It's hard to fault Snyder when he obviously put a lot of effort into the material, but I only wish the ideas and themes were as perfectly carried over as the obsessive detail in recreating the exact comic scenes. As I said before the film was certainly worthwhile for me if only just to see these beloved characters on screen, but that also was the most frustrating part because that was often times all one was seeing: a live action restaging of the comic panels and not a living, breathing creation of it's own.

Dead & Messed Up

03-07-2009, 02:42 AM

Okay. Full thoughts.

1) The film takes its sweet time, just as the graphic novel does, but I appreciated the time to simply dwell in this world, and grow accustomed to the characters, and grow to like the actors playing them.

2) Jeffrey Dean Morgan puts in delicious work as the Comedian. He does a terrific job bringing just enough empathy to this sick son of a bitch, and his presence and composure and delivery makes an impossible line like "It came true! You're lookin' at it" into something with weight and dimension.

3) One has to wonder if all the slow-motion is necessary. I have no significant problem with it in some cases. When Nite Owl and Silk Spectre bring down a bunch of prison thugs, the purpose is to accentuate just how much they love fighting bad guys, how much it actualizes them. Or when the Comedian leaps off the Owl ship, granting his formidable stature even more attention. But Snyder shows that he's capable of simple action direction and emphasizing character, and too much slow motion can really de-emphasize the importance of things. Imagine an exclamation point after every other sentence in this paragraph.

4) It's truly incredible how far computer graphics have come. Dr. Manhattan is as seamless a presence as any of the flesh-and-blood characters in the film. Crudup's natural voice works perfectly too, as a counterpoint to his Godly abilities.

5) Jackie Earle Haley is so damned good as Rorschach that it hurts. His performance helped me recognize something that was, until now, too subdued for me to catch in the novel: Rorschach desperately needs the filth of the city. It's the only purpose he has anymore. His nights are repeated atonement for sins enacted against him and by him, and there will never be forgiveness.

6) Matthew Goode's Ozymandias has a strange inflection and attitude that I thought would be distracting, but instead become vital. This is the only character that feels interpreted, rather than channeled, and I'm fine with that. His slight accent reflects that, while he's since removed his mask, he still wears one hell of a disguise.

7) Nite Owl remains the most likable character; Patrick Wilson nails him so perfectly that I was in shock. He gives the film so much heart, and I suspect he's the character most audience members will empathize with.

8) Many have criticized Malin Akerman's performance as Sally Jupiter, and I agree that it's something of a weak link. I don't think it's that she does a poor job (her last scene is more moving than I expected), but this little girl simply cannot compare, on a narrative level, to the smartest man in the world, a masked Travis Bickle, or Doctor Manhattan. Compared to those men of giant egos and attitudes, her story hits like a Lifetime movie.

9) The makeup artist should never work in this town again.

10) I loved, loved, loved seeing Ozymandias smile and take it while Nite Owl futilely punches at him, trying to exact some sort of price for his affront to mankind. As well as letting Nite Owl witness Rorschach's death - in a rare moment of restraint, Snyder doesn't slow-mo the "no."

11) The soundtrack against the images is sometimes inspired (Philip Glass) and so obvious as to inspire chuckles ("Ride of the Valkyries"), but a few of them feel decidedly out of place, especially a retro-cheese-blast like "99 Luftballoons," which seems present solely to remind us that we're in the eighties.

12) Overall, I consider the film a mostly impressive feature, arguably the best thing Snyder's done. It's about as faithful as it could be, and I'm sure subsequent DVD releases will be even more slavish. I doubt we need them, though. We have the film, we have the graphic novel. Let's call it a day.

eternity

03-07-2009, 03:09 AM

I thought all of the cast did a damn good job playing their roles, it just happened that Ozymandias and Silk Spectre both got the short end of the stick on how their characters were written and utilized. Goode and Akerman both did just fine with what they were given, even though the former actor seemed really unconvincing during the end of the film, but that wasn't probably any fault of his own.

Ivan Drago

03-07-2009, 03:19 AM

Just as I imagined, everytime they showed Doc's blue penis, everyone started to fidget and giggle.

Same with my audience.

Anyway, thought this was awesome. It's not as good as the graphic novel at all, but it's a very impressive movie. Seeing again tomorrow.

9) The makeup artist should never work in this town again.

Are you referring to Carla Gugino's "old" makeup? Or to all the blood, scars and burns by boiling fat?

Dead & Messed Up

03-07-2009, 03:27 AM

Are you referring to Carla Gugino's "old" makeup? Or to all the blood, scars and burns by boiling fat?

The actor makeup, specifically Carla Gugino and Richard Nixon, both of whom looked overly cartoonish. I could understand it for the latter, seeing as how his character is essentially a caricature, but even then, it was too aggressive.

number8

03-07-2009, 03:31 AM

I thought the CG was even worse than the make-up.

Watashi

03-07-2009, 03:37 AM

I thought the CG was even worse than the make-up.
Regarding what? Manhattan?

Hell no. Manhattan looked perfect.

number8

03-07-2009, 03:43 AM

Regarding what? Manhattan?

Hell no. Manhattan looked perfect.

I think the one thing I cringed most at was the tank being disassembled, but also just the Mars lair, Archimedes flying, and Giant Manhattan in Vietnam. They didn't look finished.

megladon8

03-07-2009, 04:20 AM

4) It's truly incredible how far computer graphics have come. Dr. Manhattan is as seamless a presence as any of the flesh-and-blood characters in the film. Crudup's natural voice works perfectly too, as a counterpoint to his Godly abilities.

An awesome write-up, DaMU, but I don't like Crudup's voice as Manhattan much.

It's just a personal thing, I guess. Reading the book both times, I imagined a deep, booming, god-like voice for Manhattan. He didn't need to show his humanity in his voice, because his words spoke for themselves.

Granted I am only juding by the myriad trailers, clips and TV spots I've seen.

Watashi

03-07-2009, 05:27 AM

This is awesome. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n3VSw1XBOo)

number8

03-07-2009, 05:37 AM

This is awesome. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n3VSw1XBOo)

"With apologies to Alan Moore." :lol:

Ezee E

03-07-2009, 06:09 AM

Hmm... The movie is good. Great at moments. Poor at others. And I'm glad I read the book, because the movie just cannot compare to it, even though it succeeds as an adaptation. There's just a few things that are impossible.

Anyways, best parts about the film are some of the moments of Zack SNyder's direction. I absolutely loved the opening scene, until the fight occurs. The movement of the camera, the cutting is magnificent for a while, but all that is lost in the fighting, where it goes to pointless slow-motion.

The casting is hit or miss. The Comedian, Nite Owl, Manhattan and Rorschach are dead-on and work perfectly. Their ideas of superheros make it interesting to watch, even knowing what's coming up, and fit well. Then there's the Silk Spectres and Ozymandias. Gugino is horribly made up, and sort of worthless in the movie. I never cared for the character in the book though either. Spectre 2, Akerman, is a pretty face in a role that's suited for a better actress. She tries though, and I'm glad that she isn't just eye candy. Ozy just annoyed me. And Nixon simply looked horrible, probably intentionally, but I hated that look.

This is a lot of nitpicking. Am I being too harsh? I'm not sure. The special effects are extremely well done, the pacing is fine, and the story is generally well told. Its when the fight scenes occur that hurt the movie more than anything. There is so much emphasis on slow-motion, and the violence is intentionally overdone in attempt to excite the viewers that are bored with everything else going on. You've got the good with the bad here.

However, Snyder did the impossible. He adapted an "impossible graphic novel", the best graphic novel, and succeeded when it's all said and done. That means something.

Oh, and the squid would've been ridiculous had it been adapted here.

Ezee E

03-07-2009, 06:11 AM

The Mike

03-07-2009, 06:17 AM

Nobody laughed at Manhattan's wang in my theater.
Ditto here. Biggest laugh was the Captain Carnage/Rorshach joke...before it was stated as a joke.

There were some WTFs for Bubastis, too. :lol:

Oh yeah, and the movie's good.

number8

03-07-2009, 06:50 AM

Funny, my theater was deathly silent for the entire 3 hours, save for two moments. One was Dan standing buck-ass naked in front of his suit, the camera gliding down to reveal his ass. Laughs there. The second was the "You're locked up in here with me!" line, which drew big claps and cheers, and one guy hollering, "RORSCHAAAAAACH! My boy!"

Heh.

Izzy Black

03-07-2009, 07:33 AM

Really enjoyed this flick.

Sxottlan

03-07-2009, 09:00 AM

I loved this film.

Completely transporting and at times haunting.

number8

03-07-2009, 10:23 AM

Opening credits online (http://www.justpressplay.net/movies/movie-news/4969-qwatchmenq-opening-credits-online.html)

DavidSeven

03-07-2009, 11:23 AM

Loved the novel; didn't like this film.

I'll be just fine if I never see Zack Snyder film any sort of violence or sex ever again. His pornographic approach to both is too much for this film or any other.

Ending: Limp. Don't mind the changes, but it's executed/resolved too quickly. It never lets the choices being made really sink in. Nite Owl and Laurie are afterthoughts in the climax, but it's their choices (along with Rorschach's) that should be really striking a chord with the audience. Instead, their decisions are glossed over -- maybe even completely unclear to those unfamiliar with the novel.

The rest of the film sinks in its reverence for Moore's work. It captures much of the detail, but little of the essence. We're left with a disjointed and confused narrative without the chapters giving each story its own life. Snyder would have been better off if he freed himself from Moore's structure and attempted to craft something that actually worked in this medium. Maybe then, he could have captured the key emotional highs in the novel instead of missing the mark most of the time. And also, maybe then, he could have captured something that felt fluid, original, and affecting rather than something that feels slavishly devoted to something that already exists.

Skitch

03-07-2009, 12:07 PM

I think my desire to see the squid, is just, to see the squid. I can't fathom a few of those final frames from the book, where tentecles and guts and blood are coating the streets of New York.

I would love to see it on screen. My disappointment at it not be included is just because I would love to see how they handle it visually, not that it is a required plot point. It sounds to me as though the replacement act would work just fine (hoping to catch a matinee today), but damn, I would love to see the streets flowin' with the goo! :)

Skitch

03-07-2009, 12:10 PM

It captures much of the detail, but little of the essence. We're left with a disjointed and confused narrative...

Really? I thought the narrative of the book was pretty disjointed...

megladon8

03-07-2009, 01:32 PM

I'm still of the mind that "Watchmen" is a great, brilliant, wonderful example of the artform...but I cannot agree with those who say it is the very best.

Top 10? Sure. But I don't think it would break the top 5 for me.

Izzy Black

03-07-2009, 01:34 PM

Loved the novel; didn't like this film.

I'll be just fine if I never see Zack Snyder film any sort of violence or sex ever again. His pornographic approach to both is too much for this film or any other.

What? You'll have to expound on this. How exactly is his approach "pornographic?" Is it merely in the fact that he is revealing (in which case, "pornographic" does not strike me as the appropriate adjective), or that he is exploitative, lewd, and aiming for titillation?

megladon8

03-07-2009, 01:40 PM

What? You'll have to expound on this. How exactly is his approach "pornographic?" Is it merely in the fact that he is revealing (in which case, "pornographic" does not strike me as the appropriate adjective), or that he is exploitative, lewd, and aiming for titillation?

I think it's that he tries to make the violence look 300-cool, and (I'm guessing) the sex scene is supposed to be, well, hot and sexy.

Izzy Black

03-07-2009, 01:45 PM

I think it's that he tries to make the violence look 300-cool, and (I'm guessing) the sex scene is supposed to be, well, hot and sexy.

Still not talking about pornography here.

megladon8

03-07-2009, 01:48 PM

Still not talking about pornography here.

...it's a different use of the word.

DS doesn't mean there's literally pornographic content in the film. He's using the word to explain the exploitative nature of the scenes in question. As opposed to challenging the viewers into thinking "these superheroes are some sick puppies", it's making us go "oohh" and "aaaaahhh" over how cool they look beating people up.

Ezee E

03-07-2009, 02:18 PM

Yeah, my crowd loved the "You're locked in here with me!" line as well

Izzy Black

03-07-2009, 02:23 PM

...it's a different use of the word.

DS doesn't mean there's literally pornographic content in the film. He's using the word to explain the exploitative nature of the scenes in question. As opposed to challenging the viewers into thinking "these superheroes are some sick puppies", it's making us go "oohh" and "aaaaahhh" over how cool they look beating people up.

Well for one, I do not think such use of the word is appropriate. Pornography indubitably entails its original meanings and connotations of lewdness and inartistic titillation. Secondly, I do not think the action or sexuality in the film functioned strictly as entertainment (which, again, I would not call pornographic). I am quite confident the attempted rape scene was intended to be challenging, or the scenes involving the promiscuity of Laurie's mother. Likewise, Snyder is going for a kind of idealization with unclothed bodies, the use of the musical score, and the sexual connection between Laurie and Dan, both during the sex scene and later in the dream sequence. Snyder may have been at his weakest with the Dr. M sex scene, but even in this case, the intention is clearly not pornographic; he is trying to establish something narratively about both characters with this scene that is far cry from the "exploitative" oracle strip-tease in 300, which was wholly unnecessary. The violence is arguably less character-driven, but maximizing the depravity and absurdity of their experiences, such as the murder of the pregnant Vietnamese woman or the complete and utter disintegration of individuals down to their physical elements, I would say is a central aspect of the film's depiction of anomie and noirish wasteland environment. A weaker scene would be the amputation of the prisoner's arms, but I would not say it is particularly inconsistent with the general thematic tone of the film. The sex and violence in this film is fairly functional, if not essentially so.

megladon8

03-07-2009, 02:28 PM

Izzy Black

03-07-2009, 02:28 PM

...which is exactly what he was saying.

And exactly what I am contesting?

Ezee E

03-07-2009, 02:29 PM

And exactly what I am contesting?
Nothing?

Izzy Black

03-07-2009, 02:31 PM

Nothing?

What? I am contesting the notion that the use of violence and sexuality in the film was used pornographically.

megladon8

03-07-2009, 02:42 PM

What? I am contesting the notion that the use of violence and sexuality in the film was used pornographically.

No, you seem to be more trying to engage in a semantics argument over the use of the word "pornographic".

Though I thought DS used it pretty well.

Izzy Black

03-07-2009, 02:49 PM

No, you seem to be more trying to engage in a semantics argument over the use of the word "pornographic".

Though I thought DS used it pretty well.

I am pretty sure you brought up semantics with your mention of a "different use." Yet, nevertheless, I am using your definition, not debating it. I am saying according to your definition that you provided, I disagree that the violence and sex is used pornographically in the film. We seem to be agreeing on the definition and use.

Kurosawa Fan

03-07-2009, 04:23 PM

A friend asked me to see this with him tonight. I loaned him my copy of the book a while back, and he's interested to see how things turned out. More interested than I am, apparently. I'm probably going to go, only because my wife has stuff going on and doesn't care to ever see it, but as of right now I haven't made up my mind.

number8

03-07-2009, 04:42 PM

Heh, Warren Ellis is refusing to see the film.

Spaceman Spiff

03-07-2009, 04:59 PM

Think I'll see this tonight. Maybe. I'm still kind of wary though.

number8

03-07-2009, 05:11 PM

Well for one, I do not think such use of the word is appropriate. Pornography indubitably entails its original meanings and connotations of lewdness and inartistic titillation. Secondly, I do not think the action or sexuality in the film functioned strictly as entertainment (which, again, I would not call pornographic). I am quite confident the attempted rape scene was intended to be challenging, or the scenes involving the promiscuity of Laurie's mother. Likewise, Snyder is going for a kind of idealization with unclothed bodies, the use of the musical score, and the sexual connection between Laurie and Dan, both during the sex scene and later in the dream sequence. Snyder may have been at his weakest with the Dr. M sex scene, but even in this case, the intention is clearly not pornographic; he is trying to establish something narratively about both characters with this scene that is far cry from the "exploitative" oracle strip-tease in 300, which was wholly unnecessary. The violence is arguably less character-driven, but maximizing the depravity and absurdity of their experiences, such as the murder of the pregnant Vietnamese woman or the complete and utter disintegration of individuals down to their physical elements, I would say is a central aspect of the film's depiction of anomie and noirish wasteland environment. A weaker scene would be the amputation of the prisoner's arms, but I would not say it is particularly inconsistent with the general thematic tone of the film. The sex and violence in this film is fairly functional, if not essentially so.

I don't think what DavidSeven is referring to when he said Snyder made them pornographic (which I believe I agree with) is the existence of the sex and violence or the set-up, but rather the manner in which it is filmed.

I don't have a problem with the sex so much, but the violence is downright hypocritical. Snyder's presenting a commentary on it and tries to translate the comic's intention of how these characters' actions are deplorable, but his camera betrays that, as mentioned numerously by several people in this thread. The 300-like fast-slow motion, the precious lingering on broken bones and splattered guts, and the heroic shots of Rorschach. After he burned the inmate's face, the camera practically did the Spielberg hero dolly as Rorschach said his punchline. In the arm-cutting scene, the scene ends with a shot of Rorschach through the bars, looking sideways and menacing, waiting for the bad guys to come get him like a badass. Those kind of things, I think are appropriate to say they made the violence pornographic.

EyesWideOpen

03-07-2009, 05:30 PM

megladon8

03-07-2009, 05:45 PM

Izzy Black

03-07-2009, 05:49 PM

I don't think what DavidSeven is referring to when he said Snyder made them pornographic (which I believe I agree with) is the existence of the sex and violence or the set-up, but rather the manner in which it is filmed.

I gathered as much.

I don't have a problem with the sex so much, but the violence is downright hypocritical. Snyder's presenting a commentary on it and tries to translate the comic's intention of how these characters' actions are deplorable, but his camera betrays that, as mentioned numerously by several people in this thread. The 300-like fast-slow motion, the precious lingering on broken bones and splattered guts, and the heroic shots of Rorschach. After he burned the inmate's face, the camera practically did the Spielberg hero dolly as Rorschach said his punchline. In the arm-cutting scene, the scene ends with a shot of Rorschach through the bars, looking sideways and menacing, waiting for the bad guys to come get him like a badass. Those kind of things, I think are appropriate to say they made the violence pornographic.

Cannot say that I agree. As I noted in my previous post, I do not find the entertainment underlying the sequences to be any more of a contradiction than cinema itself as an entertainment/art medium. Cinema is not just about information - otherwise we would be reading a work of philosophy, nonfiction, or a piece of news literature. Your logic holds just as soundly for any action film (not excluding higher brow entries such as No Country for Old Men and Pulp Fiction). To some extent or another, all violent action films are utilizing graphic violence for visceral effect. This visceral effect need not be read as necessarily pornographic, however. Unless you are lunging all violent action films, horror, New French Extremism, and any other explicit genre that stylizes sexuality and violence as pornography, despite the self-awareness of the genres. Contradiction (which you call hypocrisy) is often what these genres are all about; the very thing that questions the relationship between theme and representation. This idea of pornography implies something inartistic or without any functional narrative value beyond titillation, but clearly, there is a function to the violence in this film, a very pointed and decided one at that. I would not say Synder's film is completely free of unnecessary stylization in areas, but his film is self-aware enough that I am quite confident we cannot just shrug off the scenes as mere pornography. Moreover, the desire to produce a visceral effect is not necessarily one in the same as crass sensationalism; the splattered guts and close-ups on the carnage are cringe-worthy; the rape is near embarrassing to watch; the murder of the Vietnamese mother outright abysmall; and the disintegration of a city notwithstanding a post-9/11 consciousness clearly is not for "pornographic" effect. Yet even in the case that adrenalin and sensationalism are elements to be had, we may be sharing a particular hypperealistic aestheticization the characters in the film experience as well. Take for example the cathartic resolve Laurie and Dan experience when they fight the criminals in the back alley. Snyder's sympathy for this lust for violence is expressed in his aesthetic. These themes color these sequences with a critical quality that is not reducible to cheap titillation.

As for Rorschach, he was not a paper-thin easily identifiable hero, either. He is clearly an ambiguous character that we are not sure what to make of him. We are not sure whether to admire his ruthless utilitarianism, uncompromising vigilantism, or be revolted by it. This is why we are shown the extremes of cruelty but yet the unwavering steadfast of his idealism in a state of anarchy, moral nihilism, and uncertainty. These shots paint him as much as a a lunatic villain as they do a "badass."

Izzy Black

03-07-2009, 05:49 PM

So, yeah, what I was trying to say.

And I addressed in my initial post, which you unaddressed in your responses.

number8

03-07-2009, 05:51 PM

The complaints about Rorschach being thought of as heroic by the audience makes no sense to me. People like anti-heroes/villains. I don't hear people complaining about Punisher being liked even though he's a psychopath or the Joker. I had more people cheering over the Joker's "trick" sequence then any Rorschach moment.

You're ditching context. Characters like Punisher are meant to be liked, they's the hero of their stories. It's not so much audiences want to like anti-heroes or not or that they like depictions of vigilantism or not, it's about maintaining the thematic points of a narrative. Rorschach is not a heroic figure, he's written to be the exact opposite of that. Maybe it's hard to reintroduce him today since comic archetypes have changed a lot in the past 20 years, but he way meant to be a parody of violent heroes. To paint him as a psychopath, to comment on vigilantism, and then to idolize the one character who represents the insanity of those actions the most, is to betray your own story.

Moore has been complaining for over a decade about comic fans liking Rorschach, and yeah, that's terribly naive and shortsighted of him, but at least in the story Moore consistently portrays him as a comical loony who snacks on sugar cubes and tortures people for no reason. Which reminds me, the movie version tones him down by not showing what he does to Moloch's cancer medicine, giving Rorschach a (perceived) heart of gold. Me no likey that. His whole creedo is "Never compromise," duh.

Izzy Black

03-07-2009, 05:55 PM

Snyder's Rorschach and Moore's Rorschach are clearly not the same character. I don't see why they need to be either. Snyder's character is far more relevant to our current social milieu, it seems.

DavidSeven

03-07-2009, 06:24 PM

number8

03-07-2009, 06:30 PM

Cannot say that I agree. As I noted in my previous post, I do not find the entertainment underlying the sequences to be any more of a contradiction than cinema itself as an entertainment/art medium. Cinema is not just about information - otherwise we would be reading a work of philosophy, nonfiction, or a piece of news literature. Your logic holds just as soundly for any action film (not excluding higher brow entries such as No Country for Old Men and Pulp Fiction). To some extent or another, all violent action films are utilizing graphic violence for visceral effect. This visceral effect need not be read as necessarily pornographic, however. Unless you are lunging all violent action films, horror, New French Extremism, and any other explicit genre that stylizes sexuality and violence as pornography, despite the self-awareness of the genres. Contradiction (which you call hypocrisy) is often what these genres are all about; the very thing that questions the relationship between theme and representation. This idea of pornography implies something inartistic or without any functional narrative value beyond titillation, but clearly, there is a function to the violence in this film, a very pointed and decided one at that. I would not say Synder's film is completely free of unnecessary stylization in areas, but his film is self-aware enough that I am quite confident we cannot just shrug off the scenes as mere pornography. Moreover, the desire to produce a visceral effect is not necessarily one in the same as crass sensationalism; the splattered guts and close-ups on the carnage are cringe-worthy; the rape is near embarrassing to watch; the murder of the Vietnamese mother outright abysmall; and the disintegration of a city notwithstanding a post-9/11 consciousness clearly is not for "pornographic" effect. Yet even in the case that adrenalin and sensationalism are elements to be had, we may be sharing a particular hypperealistic aestheticization the characters in the film experience as well. Take for example the cathartic resolve Laurie and Dan experience when they fight the criminals in the back alley. Snyder's sympathy for this lust for violence is expressed in his aesthetic. These themes color these sequences with a critical quality that is not reducible to cheap titillation.

I have to state here, not necessarily of any contribution to the discussion, that I don't really have anything against the pornography of violence. I enjoy cheap titillation, within the context of the film. My dissatisfaction of the portrayal here is purely within only Watchmen's narrative, which I admit I may have too much of an attachment with (these things get touchy to separate sometimes).

I'm seeing a stalemate, because you see the contradiction as an ironic depiction of bloodlust, whereas I believe it is purely unnecessary stylistic excess--using a terrible style to begin with. The application is awkward and the contradiction is Haneke-like in its self-dispute--which I hate. Is that kind of intimate visceral experience necessary, or even appropriate considering the point it wants to make about the characters' need for that violent lifestyle? I guess I don't see the logic in giving the audience a cathartic release of violence when you're presenting the hopelessness of it. That's not self-awareness, that's inconsistency. I find it to be a gaudy attempt at reinforcing this idea that they're elevating the silliness to adult material, as if that's the only way to do so.

By the way, I don't have a problem with the rape or the Vietnamese mother or the city-leveling. They're not stylized nor fetishized (the latter, I read, was because of WB decree fearing the 9/11 imagery, which as you said, is already present anyway--but Snyder wanted to show the corpses of New Yorkers strewn about).

number8

03-07-2009, 06:31 PM

I think I should take David7's cue. This is all I've been doing and thinking about since I woke up this morning. :crazy:

EDIT: Though I think I should get a major high five for taking a cheap shot at Haneke in a Watchmen discussion. Woo. Eh, anybody? Eh?

Ezee E

03-07-2009, 06:34 PM

Francois Truffaut beat us to this conversation decades ago.

Izzy Black

03-07-2009, 06:42 PM

Don't want to get into a lengthy debate about this -- Snyder's "pornographic approach to sex and violence" will make sense to anyone who has seen 300 or Watchmen. Meg and number8 have clarified the point enough. Anyone who has read the novel knows that the Moore creates a more focused vision with less explicit violence and more tactful sex.

Really? Because I have seen both - and it makes sense only partially for 300. It is pretty weak to just toss out a criticism without a defense and expect it to hold as a truism simply because you think its true. I am skimming all the critics over at RottenTomatoes and I have not seen any to so much as call this film as pornography. If it's been said, it does not seem to be the norm.

Finally, THE MANNER IN WHICH Snyder films his violence goes far beyond even the ballsiest action films and has a stylization that is very, very distinct from the Coens and Tarantino. Therefore, generalities about the function of violence in genre filmmaking doesn't make much sense here because every filmmaker does it differently, and most would agree that Snyder's mode of filming violence reaches a level of excess + glorification uncommon in even the gaudiest of actioners.

But I am not generalizing about how they do it, I am generalizing that they do it - and they do. I also am not seeing how Snyder's film is any ballsier than Sin City or Pulp Fiction. In the latter, brain matter is exploded all over the back seat of a car. It seems you want to fortress the Coens and Tarantino because they are established auteurs, but not Snyder, possibly because he made one bad film, which was an adaptation, and now his second film is cursed, or something. Not sure what the reasoning is. But more importantly, let's not "generalize" and speak vaugely. What exactly is Snyder doing here that's so egregious that Tarantino or others haven't done? Slow-motion? Close-ups on gratuity? Uncomfortable violence? I don't follow. This film is especially aware of its own violent nature. Tarantino advertises his films as outright exploitation flicks. He makes no apologies about it. Surely you have seen the trailer for Inglorious Bastards. We get jokes about scalping Nazis because they have no humanity. I am sure we will see something like that.

Those are my last words on the topic for now.

Seems like a good way to say "Here is what I think but I don't want to defend it - I'm outta here."

megladon8

03-07-2009, 06:46 PM

You really seem to be willfully dense with this concept of "pornographic".

Everyone's explained exactly what they meant with the use of the word, yet you keep insisting on an explanation - which they just gave to you - and then claiming that they just can't defend their opinion when they refuse to repeat themselves again.

I'm out, too.

number8

03-07-2009, 06:54 PM

http://cdn-i.dmdentertainment.com/funpages/cms_content/17131/wm1.jpg

http://cdn-i.dmdentertainment.com/funpages/cms_content/17131/wm2.jpg

http://cdn-i.dmdentertainment.com/funpages/cms_content/17131/wm3.jpg

http://cdn-i.dmdentertainment.com/funpages/cms_content/17131/wm4.jpg

http://cdn-i.dmdentertainment.com/funpages/cms_content/17131/wm5.jpg

http://cdn-i.dmdentertainment.com/funpages/cms_content/17131/wm6.jpg

http://cdn-i.dmdentertainment.com/funpages/cms_content/17131/wm7.jpg

http://cdn-i.dmdentertainment.com/funpages/cms_content/17131/wm8.jpg

http://cdn-i.dmdentertainment.com/funpages/cms_content/17131/wm9.jpg

http://cdn-i.dmdentertainment.com/funpages/cms_content/17131/wm10.jpg

http://cdn-i.dmdentertainment.com/funpages/cms_content/17131/wm11.jpg

Izzy Black

03-07-2009, 07:01 PM

I have to state here, not necessarily of any contribution to the discussion, that I don't really have anything against the pornography of violence. I enjoy cheap titillation, within the context of the film. My dissatisfaction of the portrayal here is purely within only Watchmen's narrative, which I admit I may have too much of an attachment with (these things get touchy to separate sometimes).

Fair enough. Obviously, in this film in particular, I don't see the violence as particularly pornographic. I am actually the first one making these types of criticisms of violent films, but I think Snyder made a film that has the substance to match the visual this time.

I'm seeing a stalemate, because you see the contradiction as an ironic depiction of bloodlust, whereas I believe it is purely unnecessary stylistic excess--using a terrible style to begin with. The application is awkward and the contradiction is Haneke-like in its self-dispute--which I hate. Is that kind of intimate visceral experience necessary, or even appropriate considering the point it wants to make about the characters' need for that violent lifestyle? I guess I don't see the logic in giving the audience a cathartic release of violence when you're presenting the hopelessness of it. That's not self-awareness, that's inconsistency. I find it to be a gaudy attempt at reinforcing this idea that they're elevating the silliness to adult material, as if that's the only way to do so.

Sure, but I don't see the violence in this film as cathartic for the sake of being cathartic. For example, the characters themselves in the film are experiencing something cathartic in their violence; the fact that it is cathartic for us to watch it, but yet, still being able to recognize the dangers of this kind of desire for violence is one thing that makes it compelling. The film is not an outright critique or attack on violence. That's the misconception. This is why calling it a hypocrisy or inconsistency does not really do the film justice. It assumes the intention of the film is directly criticizing violence, but it is not. It is more a philosophical wrestling with violence and attitudes about justice, revenge, heroism, identity, and morality. All of these things are thrown in the mix. The film asserts that a certain amount of aesthetictization of violence goes along with heroism as a rule. Comic book icons - Superman, Batman (vigalnte), Spiderman, what have you - they all have stylistically aggrandized violence both on the page and on the screen. We can't just sit back and call this stylization pornography. It constitutes too much of our literature and culture to reduce all stylized violent material to pornography that we render the term 'pornography' utterly meaningless.

So, in other words, to ask, Is an intimate visceral experience appropriate for a film that's trying to make a point about the character's need for that lifestyle? Absolutely. How better to empathize with these characters than to show our own tendencies and sensitivities to the appeals of violence? This is really nodding Greek tragedy. Greek tragedy is all about contradiction, but not about moralizing. It is not about easy right or wrong answers. I don't think Moore was going for that with his comic. (i,.e "This is bad - therefore anything shown to the contrary is hypocrisy"). I think the aim here is contradiction. This is why Moore's comic is famous for deconstructing the hero icon. Deconstruction is exclusively about contradiction.

By the way, I don't have a problem with the rape or the Vietnamese mother or the city-leveling. They're not stylized nor fetishized (the latter, I read, was because of WB decree fearing the 9/11 imagery, which as you said, is already present anyway--but Snyder wanted to show the corpses of New Yorkers strewn about).

Then that renders our violent scenes to a few and far in between. (Most people say all the action was shown in the trailer). The slow-motion, which we see in just about any action movie, is what we are left with, and the gore, which the gore I found just as unsettling as these other violent scenes. And, I have to disagree with you about the stylization. The city-leveling, the battle at Vietnam, and the rape scenes were certainly stylized, whether by CGI eye-candy or equally choreographed physical violence. I have also offered a possible interpretation for the general stylization of the combat scenes, but I am not sure how harmful these scenes are since it is mostly just martial arts.

Izzy Black

03-07-2009, 07:06 PM

You really seem to be willfully dense with this concept of "pornographic".

Or I just find it inaccurate. We aren't debating the semantic term here. We are debating a general view that the stylizing of violence in the film is for some negative or cheap effect. This is what I am taking issue with. It is a worthwhile discussion to be had on the film in question, in my view.

Everyone's explained exactly what they meant with the use of the word, yet you keep insisting on an explanation - which they just gave to you - and then claiming that they just can't defend their opinion when they refuse to repeat themselves again.

I assume you haven't been reading the discussion, because that's all I can really infer from this. The debate, as I have said twice now, and you have ignored, is about the actual application of the definition, not the definition itself. I know precisely what you mean when you use the term pornography. I disagree with its use and application in this case. Clear?

I'm out, too.

Surprise, surprise.

number8

03-07-2009, 07:08 PM

Congratulations, you've successfully made me want to see it again just to counter your arguments.

I was going to wait for the director's cut this July, but maybe I'll go take the wife to an IMAX showing. I'll be expecting my $15 in the mail from you.

Izzy Black

03-07-2009, 07:14 PM

Congratulations, you've successfully made me want to see it again just to counter your arguments.

Hah. Honestly, I apologize if I came on too aggressively. I just feel the film is really above the fray when it comes to stylized violent action movies.

Fezzik

03-07-2009, 07:23 PM

I don't want to get involved in the discussion ongoing, but since this IS the Watchmen thread...

I just got back from it. The changes I feared the most ended up not bothering me near as much as I expected.

While I agree Malin Akerman wasn't very good, I don't think she was the disaster I'd heard her made out to be.

Jackie Earle Haley was Rorschach brought to life.

I loved most of the sound track.

Snyder did a damn good adaptation - probably as good as we can expect from such a dense, deep piece of work. My hats are off to him for even trying something this ballsy and getting the studio to buy into it.

I loved the thing, excesses and all.

Izzy Black

03-07-2009, 07:26 PM

I liked Akerman to be honest, but this is without comparison to her character in the novel.

Qrazy

03-07-2009, 08:09 PM

This visceral effect need not be read as necessarily pornographic, however. Unless you are lunging all violent action films, horror, New French Extremism, and any other explicit genre that stylizes sexuality and violence as pornography, despite the self-awareness of the genres.

Haven't seen the film yet so I can't really comment on whether or not I'll agree or disagree about how Snyder portrays sex/violence (in this film... I certainly agree with the criticisms in relation to 300) but I don't agree that criticizing some aesthetic styles or some directors in relation to their approach to sex and violence is the same as indicting the entire genre. As a tangential example the way in which De Palma and Verhoeven portray sex and violence is entirely tonally disparate than the way Coppola, Melville, Kurosawa or even Cameron explore the topics. Which is not to say that De Palma, Verhoeven and others do not often use their approach to sex and violence in compelling ways. In terms of Verhoeven Soldier of Orange and Turkish Delight certainly do, some of his later works not so much. Oh and in all of these cases as well as in Snyder's case I would substitute the term salacious for pornographic.

Take for example the cathartic resolve Laurie and Dan experience when they fight the criminals in the back alley. Snyder's sympathy for this lust for violence is expressed in his aesthetic. These themes color these sequences with a critical quality that is not reducible to cheap titillation.

Should Snyder embrace that lust for violence though? In terms of the graphic novel I agree with your thoughts that Moore isn't condemning violence utterly but exploring it's contradictions. However I also believe that the presentation of violence remains hard hitting and brutal throughout the work. So while Moore does explore the appeal of violence I feel he also recognizes and/or insists that the violent action itself (even when done for the 'right reasons') is always ruthless.

As Watchmen perhaps Laurie and Dan are in some ways as worthy of criticism as The Comedian or Rorschach. A Scorsese or better yet a Klimov-esque approach to the violence might strike a more critical chord. One thing Snyder could have done to have his cake and eat it too is something similar to Tarantino's approach to violence. For instance in both Kill Bill and Death Proof Tarantino vascillates wildly between stylized, basically careless moments of violence and then extremely real and graphic expressions of pain. For instance Thurman's sense of agony following the Cartoony crazy 88 fight when O'ren has just cut her. Or Kurt Russell's expression of pain after his car has been smashed into which is rapidly followed by another cartoony moment. I'm not sure if Tarantino's approach is entirely successful but it certainly creates an interesting tonal contrast.

Qrazy

03-07-2009, 08:13 PM

Francois Truffaut beat us to this conversation decades ago.

This is where you provide a link.

Ezee E

03-07-2009, 08:48 PM

This is where you provide a link.
As he has said, "“It is impossible to make a true anti-war film, because the act of looking at violence is inherently exciting.”

Kurosawa Fan

03-07-2009, 08:55 PM

Looks like I'm going to see this. My expectations are low.

Qrazy

03-07-2009, 08:59 PM

As he has said, "“It is impossible to make a true anti-war film, because the act of looking at violence is inherently exciting.”

Come and See comes pretty damn close. There's nothing titillating about that violence. Although I don't think it's the best war film ever made I think it's the best presentation of violence in war that I've ever seen.

megladon8

03-07-2009, 09:17 PM

I didn't find anything exciting about Saving Private Ryan.

In fact, I've only seen it once, and I never wanted to see it again. I found it more disturbing than just about any horror movie I've seen.

Izzy Black

03-07-2009, 09:17 PM

Haven't seen the film yet so I can't really comment on whether or not I'll agree or disagree about how Snyder portrays sex/violence (in this film... I certainly agree with the criticisms in relation to 300) but I don't agree that criticizing some aesthetic styles or some directors in relation to their approach to sex and violence is the same as indicting the entire genre. As a tangential example the way in which De Palma and Verhoeven portray sex and violence is entirely tonally disparate than the way Coppola, Melville, Kurosawa or even Cameron explore the topics.

As soon as you say this, you have already separated directors by genre. You group De Palma and Verhoeven in one category and others in another category - suggesting, of course, that there are stylistic and tonal approaches to violence that can be generalized. Notwithstanding this point, though, I think you have gravely mistaken my position in the discussion. Nowhere am I generalizing violence all across genres. In fact, quite the contrary, my argument is that there are some cases where stylizing violence might be acceptable. My argument is against the totalizing generalization that stylistic violence can never be artistic, or that it is always pornographic. That is, as in the quoted text, I am addressing calling "the visceral effect" of violence in all films pornography, not just the visceral effect of violence in Watchmen. This is where number8 emphasized that s/he wanted to direct this criticism only at the film in question, to which I obliged.

Which is not to say that De Palma, Verhoeven and others do not often use their approach to sex and violence in compelling ways. In terms of Verhoeven Soldier of Orange and Turkish Delight certainly do, some of his later works not so much. Oh and in all of these cases as well as in Snyder's case I would substitute the term salacious for pornographic.

Acceptable substitution, I suppose, but again, you are greatly limited here having not seen the film. I consider 300 one of the worst films I have seen. Watchmen is quite good. The former is not a good frame of reference as far as I am concerned. Your criticisms may very well likely remain having seen the film, which will be more than interesting to discuss.

Should Snyder embrace that lust for violence though? In terms of the graphic novel I agree with your thoughts that Moore isn't condemning violence utterly but exploring it's contradictions. However I also believe that the presentation of violence remains hard hitting and brutal throughout the work. So while Moore does explore the appeal of violence I feel he also recognizes and/or insists that the violent action itself (even when done for the 'right reasons') is always ruthless.

Same as above. As I have argued, the film strikes me as particularly self-aware. Not so sure about the Moore thinking the violent action as always ruthless though. Seems questionable considering the relativism of the novel.

As Watchmen perhaps Laurie and Dan are in some ways as worthy of criticism as The Comedian or Rorschach. A Scorsese or better yet a Klimov-esque approach to the violence might strike a more critical chord. One thing Snyder could have done to have his cake and eat it too is something similar to Tarantino's approach to violence. For instance in both Kill Bill and Death Proof Tarantino vascillates wildly between stylized, basically careless moments of violence and then extremely real and graphic expressions of pain. For instance Thurman's sense of agony following the Cartoony crazy 88 fight when O'ren has just cut her. Or Kurt Russell's expression of pain after his car has been smashed into which is rapidly followed by another cartoony moment. I'm not sure if Tarantino's approach is entirely successful but it certainly creates an interesting tonal contrast.

I think Watchmen deals with some pretty excruciating examples of pain and violence. I am not so sure it vacillates, but I think the commentary exists elsewhere as I have outlined above.

Pop Trash

03-07-2009, 09:22 PM

As he has said, "“It is impossible to make a true anti-war film, because the act of looking at violence is inherently exciting.”

I think that was Godard, but maybe I'm wrong.

Izzy Black

03-07-2009, 09:24 PM

Pop Trash

03-07-2009, 09:26 PM

It was Truffaut, but it easily could have been Godard considering how ideologically loaded it is. The fact that violence is inherently exciting is all the more reason why you can make a critical war film, not the other way around.
Hmmm maybe it just sounds like something Godard would say. Then again, he loved his girls and guns in movies.

jamaul

03-07-2009, 10:20 PM

Is it just me or does it seem that Snyder subscribes to the Hitchcockian theory of shooting your action scenes the way you'd shoot your sex scenes? I found them to be beautifully grotesque and almost balletic in their execution. Say what you will about his slow-down/speed-up approach, I find it affective. I'm actually surprised that Snyder and his writers were able to translate the grace and subtlety of the violence found in the novel, and that great care was taken in a portreyal of violence that was neither gritty, real or really excessive. Pornographic violence? Are you kidding me? Porn wishes it looked that good. You want pornographic violence? - watch Saving Private Ryan.

Skitch

03-07-2009, 11:20 PM

Saw today, really good, but I think falls short of fantastic. Quite enjoyed it, but feel a tad shellshocked. Need to see it a few more times, and give it a good think. Was surprised how good Billy Crudup was in bringing Manhattan to life...it was a great performance. And then I start thinking about Rorshach...man, that guy did a really good job. Jury out on the others, need a few more views to swallow everything.

Concerning the ending change...

...I always said, I would wait to judge the ending till I saw it for myself. And seeing it for myself, the way it was done...it actually makes more sense than the book's ending. With the book's ending they would have to produce a squidy every so often to keep the idea going. With the film ending, they wouldn't. Why? Manhattan's exsistance and power is common knowledge. Well done. I fully approve.

Qrazy

03-07-2009, 11:44 PM

As soon as you say this, you have already separated directors by genre. You group De Palma and Verhoeven in one category and others in another category - suggesting, of course, that there are stylistic and tonal approaches to violence that can be generalized.

You said (correct me if I misread) that to criticize the approach to violence in Watchmen is to criticize the approach to violence in all action/horror/etc films. All of the directors I mentioned have directed action to some degree or another, that is the genre I was referring to. I find that the former two directors approach sex/violence in a much more titillating and aggressive manner than those others. When we speak of genre I am referring only to already established genres such as action/horror/etc, not tonal or stylistic genres.

Notwithstanding this point, though, I think you have gravely mistaken my position in the discussion. Nowhere am I generalizing violence all across genres. In fact, quite the contrary, my argument is that there are some cases where stylizing violence might be acceptable. My argument is against the totalizing generalization that stylistic violence can never be artistic, or that it is always pornographic. That is, as in the quoted text, I am addressing calling "the visceral effect" of violence in all films pornography, not just the visceral effect of violence in Watchmen. This is where number8 emphasized that s/he wanted to direct this criticism only at the film in question, to which I obliged.

Right but all of the latter directors I mentioned also stylize violence but they don't do it in a similarly aggressive manner. I don't think anyone is arguing that stylistic violence can never be artistic, the detractors are arguing that Snyder's manner of stylization in relation to the content of the novel is problematic (although I haven't seen the film I did watch a few scenes from it online... including the slo-mo fight in the jail with Nite Owl).

Same as above. As I have argued, the film strikes me as particularly self-aware. Not so sure about the Moore thinking the violent action as always ruthless though. Seems questionable considering the relativism of the novel.

I only meant that the portrayal of violent action in the graphic novel always seemed ruthless to me. There was no violence in the GN that did not seem completely brutal to me. The relativism of the novel in relation to characters actions doesn't conflict with the harsh portrayal of all violence imo.

Anyway will probably see the film tuesday or sometime this week, I shall return at that juncture.

Watashi

03-08-2009, 12:43 AM

Never in my life would I thought to see Israfel strongly defending Watchmen.

Good times.

Kurosawa Fan

03-08-2009, 05:11 AM

Saw it tonight. Not as bad as I thought it would be, but not very good. First and foremost, outside of Haley I found the performances downright bad. Especially Akerman. I'm going to actively try to avoid any film she's in from here on out. This is the second film I've seen her in, and she was terrible in both.

I also thought the soundtrack (not the score) was the most uninspired, least subtle soundtrack in any film I can remember. I mean, The Times They are A-Changin' during a montage of eras is one thing, but Hallelujah during a sex scene, All Along the Watchtower's lyrics matching up with the actions on screen during the escapade to Antarctica (ex. "Two riders were approaching, and the wind began to howl" when Owl and Rorschach were approaching Adrian's building), Everybody Wants to Rule the World in the background during an Ozymandias soliloquy, 99 Luftballoons after a nuclear news discussion, The Sounds of Silence during a funeral, etc. The list was endless. Just terrible.

I didn't find anything about the film pornographic, but I thought it was really bland. For such an epic film, it was frankly pretty dull. I actually think the film would have benefitted from a bit of trimming. It felt as long as every one of those 163 minutes. I know Snyder wanted to stay true to the source, but he missed the essence of the novel in place of hammering down the minute details. My audience backed that up by giggling and responding positively to everything Rorshach did.

It was just mediocre from start to finish. I'd expand, but I've already spent way too much time on this.

Watashi

03-08-2009, 06:22 AM

I would donate my life savings to a director who could make a proper Watchmen movie under 2 1/2 hours.

The Mike

03-08-2009, 06:47 AM

Spinal

03-08-2009, 07:52 AM

Some compelling ideas here about demythologizing the superhero and using that to question America's political and military role worldwide. Unfortunately, those ideas struggle to be heard in a film that is more concerned with 'being awesome'. I have still seen little evidence that Snyder cares a whit about the themes in his own films and how they will impact the viewer. Individual moments work. I particularly appreciated the way the film pushed past sexual taboos usually in place in a superhero film. And there is much to be said about a film that is willing to leave one of its hero's genitals flapping in the breeze for about half the time he is on-screen. However, while the film is sporadically compelling, it is rarely, if ever, elegant. Haley's Rorschach is the character that leaves the strongest impression, but is his raspy growl a knowing parody of Christian Bale's oh-so-serious Batman or is merely a tone-def repetition of it? After literally raising the film's stakes to Defcon 1, the film arrives at a conclusion that is absurdly pat. But, I suppose, I should at least praise it for being hopeful.

Spinal

03-08-2009, 08:08 AM

Also, this film clearly needed more Silhouette.

Kurosawa Fan

03-08-2009, 01:03 PM

Spinal, have you read the novel?

Spinal

03-08-2009, 02:53 PM

Spinal, have you read the novel?

Nope.

Izzy Black

03-08-2009, 02:54 PM

You said (correct me if I misread) that to criticize the approach to violence in Watchmen is to criticize the approach to violence in all action/horror/etc films. All of the directors I mentioned have directed action to some degree or another, that is the genre I was referring to. I find that the former two directors approach sex/violence in a much more titillating and aggressive manner than those others. When we speak of genre I am referring only to already established genres such as action/horror/etc, not tonal or stylistic genres.

No - this can only be a cursory reading of my arguments. The appeal to various genres was was showing the impracticality of generalizing pornography across genres. I was arguing against the point that stylized violence in film is ipso facto pornography. I brought up stylized violence throughout all genres and literature to point out that we would be lunging all of our works of visual art and literature into the pornography billing, which is a gross generalization that does not do our art or culture justice. This is partly because the criteria set for the film was ostensibly too vague and general, hence my point, "This visceral effect need not be read as necessarily pornographic, however." I cannot emphasize this point any better.

Right but all of the latter directors I mentioned also stylize violence but they don't do it in a similarly aggressive manner. I don't think anyone is arguing that stylistic violence can never be artistic, the detractors are arguing that Snyder's manner of stylization in relation to the content of the novel is problematic (although I haven't seen the film I did watch a few scenes from it online... including the slo-mo fight in the jail with Nite Owl).

Again - this is you missing the course of the discussion. I clarified this point above. The argument began, yes, as describing Snyder's technique as pornographic, but a possible underlying defense for this argument was that any stylization of violence is to some degree pornographic. Said posters defended this stance by arguing "I don't mind pornographic violence," thus not necessarily applying the term pejoratively, but yet still descriptively. I took issue with this statement by pointing out how ubiquitous stylized violence is, and that to call it pornographic seems inaccurate and uncritical. The discussion has moved away from this generalization, however, and I have then advanced to present several arguments as to why I think Snyder's film in particular is not pornographic - by any standard, universalizing or not. It is not like I have been exactly lazy here, clinching my argument on some obscure generalization, when this was clearly a tangential point to emphasize the plurality of stylized violence, arguing against the universality of pornography in stylized violence. (My argument did not rest on the syllogism that if Watchmen is not pornographic, then no violent film is pornographic. I have already conceded as much with regards to 300. So, it is clear, I am not universalizing his technique.)

I only meant that the portrayal of violent action in the graphic novel always seemed ruthless to me. There was no violence in the GN that did not seem completely brutal to me. The relativism of the novel in relation to characters actions doesn't conflict with the harsh portrayal of all violence imo.

The violence in the film and GP is certainly brutal, but that violence is not outright condemned, which relates to characterization in both cases. Either way, digression.

Kurosawa Fan

03-08-2009, 04:33 PM

Nope.

Sorry, I almost lost your response among the barrage of deleted posts.

If you liked the overall themes of demythologizing the superhero, I would definitely seek out the novel. It does a better job of expressing those themes, as well as avoiding the flaws of Snyder's film.

Ezee E

03-08-2009, 04:54 PM

Deleted posts? Wha happened

Spinal

03-08-2009, 06:11 PM

Sorry, I almost lost your response among the barrage of deleted posts.

If you liked the overall themes of demythologizing the superhero, I would definitely seek out the novel. It does a better job of expressing those themes, as well as avoiding the flaws of Snyder's film.

Oh yes, I assumed as much. I'll read it at some point, though I suspect it will be difficult to acquire it from the library anytime soon.

number8

03-08-2009, 06:25 PM

Oh yes, I assumed as much. I'll read it at some point, though I suspect it will be difficult to acquire it from the library anytime soon.

Buy it.

Seriously, it's $10 on Amazon and you're going to want to read it more than once.

Qrazy

03-08-2009, 06:25 PM

No - this can only be a cursory reading of my arguments.

:rolleyes:

The appeal to various genres was was showing the impracticality of generalizing pornography across genres. I was arguing against the point that stylized violence in film is ipso facto pornography.

I am not arguing against that notion, but what I am saying is that no one has said that stylized violence in films is ipso facto pornography. I gave examples of directors who use stylized violence in a non-pornographic sense (let's substitute exploitative for pornographic) versus those who use it in an exploitative sense.

I brought up stylized violence throughout all genres and literature to point out that we would be lunging all of our works of visual art and literature into the pornography billing, which is a gross generalization that does not do our art or culture justice. This is partly because the criteria set for the film was ostensibly too vague and general, hence my point, "This visceral effect need not be read as necessarily pornographic, however." I cannot emphasize this point any better.

That is precisely what I originally disagreed with. I do not feel critiquing what someone feels to be exploitative violence in a film is the same as lunging all stylized violence into the exploitative category. Kurosawa, Melville and Coppola all use stylized violence in their work. I do not feel they use it exploitatively. I do feel that De Palma and Verhoeven use their violence exploitatively although not in every film, and sometimes a certain degree of exploitation works (It's certainly an important element of Turkish Delight and I feel you are arguing it is important in Watchmen as well). Now of course definitions of exploitation are subjectively sensitive but I do not think they are entirely arbitrary.

Again - this is you missing the course of the discussion.

Again - :rolleyes:

I clarified this point above. The argument began, yes, as describing Snyder's technique as pornographic, but a possible underlying defense for this argument was that any stylization of violence is to some degree pornographic.

Who said this? I still don't see it.

Said posters defended this stance by arguing "I don't mind pornographic violence," thus not necessarily applying the term pejoratively, but yet still descriptively. I took issue with this statement by pointing out how ubiquitous stylized violence is, and that to call it pornographic seems inaccurate and uncritical.

Exploitative may be a better term but in some cases it is accurate (although perhaps not in the case of Watchmen). What I am disagreeing with is what I view as your leap from someone saying Watchmen's violence is exploitative (which you are welcome to disagree with) to the conclusion that they are implying that every portrayal of violence is exploitative. This strikes me as a Strawman because what they are saying is that they feel that the manner by which Snyder uses stylized violence is exploitative. If he had stylized it in a different manner it would have been more effective.

Perhaps differing definitions of stylized violence is what is causing our current miscommunication.

The discussion has moved away from this generalization, however, and I have then advanced to present several arguments as to why I think Snyder's film in particular is not pornographic - by any standard, universalizing or not. It is not like I have been exactly lazy here, clinching my argument on some obscure generalization, when this was clearly a tangential point to emphasize the plurality of stylized violence, arguing against the universality of pornography in stylized violence. (My argument did not rest on the syllogism that if Watchmen is not pornographic, then no violent film is pornographic. I have already conceded as much with regards to 300. So, it is clear, I am not universalizing his technique.)

Your tangential point was all I was contesting.

The violence in the film and GP is certainly brutal, but that violence is not outright condemned, which relates to characterization in both cases. Either way, digression.

I have never said it was outright condemned. I said I find that the portrayal of violence in the graphic novel, the act of violence itself, is always portrayed visually as brutal and ruthless.

Dead & Messed Up

03-08-2009, 07:11 PM

Was anyone else put off by the change to the final moments?

Specifically, the voiceover from Rorshach's journal, implying the choice the New Frontiersman kid made.

I was more disappointed by that than anything to do with the plot leading up to it.

It could imply a choice, or it could be there simply to remind the dumber people in the audience of what the journal represents. I'd lean towards the latter.

Spinal

03-08-2009, 07:23 PM

It's too bad the film doesn't have more humor, like the moment where Manhattan is at work while he's supposed to be in bed. It would make the self-serious stuff a little easier to take. The final hour contains way too many half-whispered grandiose statements.

The Mike

03-08-2009, 07:28 PM

It could imply a choice, or it could be there simply to remind the dumber people in the audience of what the journal represents. I'd lean towards the latter.

Fair enough, as long as you're not implying I'm not one of the dumber people in the audience. ;)

Spinal

03-08-2009, 07:47 PM

In the book, does it make more sense that The Comedian is called The Comedian? Because in the film, his name bears no resemblance to his character.

Dukefrukem

03-08-2009, 07:59 PM

Just got back. WIcked dissapointed. But more in the story than anything. (Never read the novel) Needed more Comedian. 73

Dead & Messed Up

03-08-2009, 08:11 PM

In the book, does it make more sense that The Comedian is called The Comedian? Because in the film, his name bears no resemblance to his character.

It's equally contradictory in the book, although there are suggestions that he's the Comedian because he doesn't take life and morality as seriously as the other heroes.

Spinal

03-08-2009, 08:15 PM

It's equally contradictory in the book, although there are suggestions that he's the Comedian because he doesn't take life and morality as seriously as the other heroes.

Yeah, I suspected that it had something to do with him suggesting that life (or at least his own life) is a big joke.

Izzy Black

03-08-2009, 08:22 PM

:rolleyes:

Unless I am wrong.... we'll see.

I am not arguing against that notion, but what I am saying is that no one has said that stylized violence in films is ipso facto pornography. I gave examples of directors who use stylized violence in a non-pornographic sense (let's substitute exploitative for pornographic) versus those who use it in an exploitative sense.

Well we cannot substitute exploitative for pornographic because that is not what I was discussing. Offering up exploitative examples might be worthwhile in general, but it does not really address the disagreement I had with the other posters. My argument tested the underlying notion that the visceral or entertaining effect of stylizing in violence in general is pornographic. I already explained that number8 was emphasizing this argument only for Watchmen, and so I addressed the arguments exclusively as such. In other words, your concern has already been addressed, and nowhere was I arguing that all stylized violent films were pornographic/not pornographic. I readily acknowledged the distinction when I considered 300 to be more in the pornographic category.

That is precisely what I originally disagreed with. I do not feel critiquing what someone feels to be exploitative violence in a film is the same as lunging all stylized violence into the exploitative category. Kurosawa, Melville and Coppola all use stylized violence in their work. I do not feel they use it exploitatively. I do feel that De Palma and Verhoeven use their violence exploitatively although not in every film, and sometimes a certain degree of exploitation works (It's certainly an important element of Turkish Delight and I feel you are arguing it is important in Watchmen as well). Now of course definitions of exploitation are subjectively sensitive but I do not think they are entirely arbitrary.

What you are disagreeing with is not my argument. I did not suggest that criticizing a particular film means you are lunging all stylized violence in the pornographic category. Here is what I wrote:

This visceral effect need not be read as necessarily pornographic, however. Unless you are lunging all violent action films, horror, New French Extremism, and any other explicit genre that stylizes sexuality and violence as pornography, despite the self-awareness of the genres.
It was a tangent, of course, but the statement immediately before the qualifier says, "This visceral effect need not be read as necessarily pornographic." I am not saying that, "Watchmen need not be read as necessarily pornographic, unless...." but specifically addressing the general notion of "visceral effect" or "stylized violence" in any sense. My argument, then, was not that all stylized violence is pornographic, which number8 acknowledged. We then began discussing whether or not Watchmen falls under this category.

Again - :rolleyes:

I share the sentiment.

Who said this? I still don't see it.

The argument was a rhetorical investigating the underlying assumption behind the opposition's argument. The opposition clarified, and this leaves us with determining what exactly constitutes pornographic stylization.

Exploitative may be a better term but in some cases it is accurate (although perhaps not in the case of Watchmen). What I am disagreeing with is what I view as your leap from someone saying Watchmen's violence is exploitative (which you are welcome to disagree with) to the conclusion that they are implying that every portrayal of violence is exploitative. This strikes me as a Strawman because what they are saying is that they feel that the manner by which Snyder uses stylized violence is exploitative. If he had stylized it in a different manner it would have been more effective.

I understand your point, but I addressed this point specifically when DavidSeven and number8 replied. The argument requires them to address the specifics of the film and compare and contrast what exactly is pornographic about the use of stylization in the film, unless we are talking stylization in general.

Perhaps differing definitions of stylized violence is what is causing our current miscommunication.

Could be.

Your tangential point was all I was contesting.

And all I am clarifying.

I have never said it was outright condemned. I said I find that the portrayal of violence in the graphic novel, the act of violence itself, is always portrayed visually as brutal and ruthless.

OK - I am just not sure how it fits into your broader argument, or what the emphasis was.

Qrazy

03-08-2009, 08:52 PM

I'll respond after I see the film in a couple days.

Spun Lepton

03-08-2009, 09:00 PM

8/10

Pros:
-Adeptly condensed the book down to fit the screen.
-Respectful of the source, and maintained its core message, while also delivering some captivating character drama.
-Overall, performances were good. Wilson, Crudup and Morgan were all excellent. Haley knocked it out of the park, any time Rorschach screamed a line, I giggled.
-Very engaging, the 2.5 hours flew by.

Cons:
-The make-up was pretty much terrible. Nixon and 70-year-old Silk Spectre were wholly unconvincing. They only pulled me out of the story. Then again, I watched it at IMAX. Maybe the flaws were more apparent for that reason?
-Akerman wasn't terrible, but she did deliver a few clunky lines.
-Sometimes I couldn't understand what Haley was saying through the mask.
-Some of the CG was a bit distracting, but, then again, IMAX.
-Some extended scenes seemed unnecessary.

-Goode was a bit too diabolical in his mannerisms.
-Manhattan doesn't say "Nothing ever ends," which was, as far as I was concerned, an important exclamation point at the end of the story. Having Laurie say it makes it a throw-away line, which disappointed me a bit.

I will definitely be checking out the extended DVD.

Izzy Black

03-08-2009, 09:01 PM

I'll respond after I see the film in a couple days.

Alright - although in the last post I did not really address the film.

number8

03-08-2009, 09:24 PM

It's equally contradictory in the book, although there are suggestions that he's the Comedian because he doesn't take life and morality as seriously as the other heroes.

Well, there's also the fact that he took on the name when he was 17 and he was for the most part a happy-go-lucky kid. In the flashback scene before the rape, he's shown as cracking jokes. It's only in the years to come that his name became more ironic.

Blake saw God as the ultimate comedian, who engineers cruel practical jokes on people. I think he in some ways saw himself as beyond his mortal peers because he claimed to see the joke in humanity that no one else did.

number8

03-08-2009, 10:19 PM

So weekend numbers didn't meet expectations.

Methinks it's gonna fail next weekend.

Qrazy

03-08-2009, 10:25 PM

Alright - although in the last post I did not really address the film.

Ah k I didn't read the post yet because I just figured it would make more sense to continue the conversation after seeing the film first. Well I have an essay to do anyway so I'll still wait until after I see the film.

Izzy Black

03-08-2009, 10:32 PM

Ah k I didn't read the post yet because I just figured it would make more sense to continue the conversation after seeing the film first. Well I have an essay to do anyway so I'll still wait until after I see the film.

Oh, no worries. I wasn't trying to rush you or anything. We are quibbling anyways.

Dead & Messed Up

03-08-2009, 11:50 PM

So weekend numbers didn't meet expectations.

Methinks it's gonna fail next weekend.

It'll be in second after Race to Witch Mountain, I bet. But yeah, it's probably gonna lose ~65%.

lovejuice

03-09-2009, 12:41 AM

So weekend numbers didn't meet expectations.

Methinks it's gonna fail next weekend.
we've finally reached an age when 55$ millions on the opening weekend is below expectation? :crazy:

this is a commentary on the state of movie biz. than your post, 8.

MadMan

03-09-2009, 01:07 AM

I found the film to be pretty damn good, almost great in some respects. However I feel I need to see it again, if only to settle on a final rating. I liked the entire cast, and the visuals were really quite stunning. The musical choices were also all excellent: my favorite was the rather obvious but awesome use of All Along the Watchtower, a Bob Dylan tune covered by The Jimi Hendrix Experience.

While I feel that some parts of the graphic novel should have been included in the movie, I can understand why they were left out. If anything I salute Synder for fashioning a well crafted film out of a really complex, multi-themed graphic novel.

And funny enough the film made me finally like the graphic novel's final scene and Dan and Laurie's trip to see Sally, although they should have left in the part where Sally longingly looks at Blake's picture. On the other hand, the movie could have ended with that final beautiful shot of the city skyline in daytime, and I would have been fine with that, also.

Amnesiac

03-09-2009, 03:01 AM

The application is awkward and the contradiction is Haneke-like in its self-dispute

Can you elaborate on this term? Not in regards to Watchmen, but Haneke.

jamaul

03-09-2009, 03:17 AM

So weekend numbers didn't meet expectations.

Methinks it's gonna fail next weekend.

Watchmen will fail. And everyone will write it off, it'll be a temporary blow for all those who put so much effort into it. It will continue to divide audiences, but I do believe that Watchmen could very will be the film from '09 that people are still arguing about, talking about, enjoying and questioning in twenty years. This film has cult following written all over it. When I saw it, I almost felt as if it needed to fail to ensure the kind of legacy it was reaching for . . . ultimately, ambition seems to be a turn off to a lot of people these days, and while Watchmen did bite off way more than it was ultimately able to chew, I couldn't help but admire its balls (Not Manhattan's) -- its ambition was greater even than The Dark Knight's (which I still feel was probably the better film). If it isn't the best comic book movie ever made, I wouldn't be affraid to at least suggest it may be the most layered, stylistic and meaningful one I've ever seen. And with the growing signifcance of the genre as of late, that's saying something.

Oh, and I think Snyder will end up getting a lot of flack for this film. Much of its "failure" will be unfairly attributed to the young filmmaker, and it sucks, because I think he did a hell of a job. This did not feel like the work of a director's third effort. He did approach much of the work with the nuance it needed, other parts with the subtle comedy found in the source material and, even moreso than the source material, this film felt like the product Watchmen aimed to be: the first work of postmodernist comic book art.

eternity

03-09-2009, 03:25 AM

All of the WOM has been rather positive. In real life terms, it seems like I like it less than most people do, save for the few who thought it was "boring and had no plot." Heh.

Mal

03-09-2009, 03:37 AM

All of the WOM has been rather positive.

It's only #132 on IMDB. Not good e'nuf, homeslice.

BirdsAteMyFace

03-09-2009, 03:54 AM

I agree with most of KF's sentiments.

I'm not sure if it has already been mentioned, but I found the attempts of incorporating philosophical references regarding utilitarianism to be completely shallow, and extra weight that the film just couldn't handle successfully.

And nevermind Akerman, I couldn't get around Carla Gugino. Yeesh. Aside from maybe Haley, the entire cast was a trainwreck.

MadMan

03-09-2009, 04:09 AM

It's only #132 on IMDB. Not good e'nuf, homeslice.Using IMDB.com as a barometer of good taste is a bad idea, sport.

Spinal

03-09-2009, 04:14 AM

Using IMDB.com as a barometer of good taste is a bad idea, sport.

You mean American History X isn't one of the 50 best movies of all time? :eek:

Mal

03-09-2009, 04:21 AM

Using IMDB.com as a barometer of good taste is a bad idea, sport.

Psh. Dark Knight was #1. For like TWO MONTHS. THAT MEANS SOMETHING.

The Mike

03-09-2009, 04:40 AM

Psh. Dark Knight was #1. For like TWO MONTHS. THAT MEANS SOMETHING.

This reminds me of the conversation from Sports Night about The Starland Vocal Band. To paraphrase:

"Are you trying to tell me The Dark Knight's not cool?
"No, I'm trying to tell you IMDB voters are not cool."

Ezee E

03-09-2009, 04:59 AM

Watchmen is a movie that is suppose to do huge business. Making less than $60 million is a disappointment for what people were thinking.

I, for one, didn't think it'd be very successful. Not many people know of the Watchmen, it is 2 1/2 hours, and while Zack Snyder may be "visionary" he is certainly not one that will bring in people like a Michael Bay/Steven Spielberg/Tarantino/Scorsese director.

dreamdead

03-09-2009, 05:04 AM

It's not bad in terms of fidelity. However, since it fetishizes its fidelity to such a high degree, I'm left wondering why Snyder and company felt the need to make Laurie such a weak character. Unlike in the graphic novel, Laurie seems disinterested in the concept of a three-way with Jon on this night, rather than aghast and incredulous that he would even attempt such a move. Later, in Antarctica, Jon kisses her before isolating himself and again Laurie's decision-making is called into question; she seems to seesaw between he and Dan too easily, as the plot dictates, rather than because of any conscious decision. This confusion is further secured because Akerman has little vitality in her scenes, so that the final confrontation with Sally holds no emotional weight, nor do any of her scenes when she's asked to do more than be sexy... Likewise, the fetishizing of basically all the women in stockings (even Walter's mother) is discomforting, for it alludes to woman-as-sex-object a little too heavily, and I'm unsure if it's altogether intended.

Additionally, the explosion in NYC similarly holds no emotional weight because the film's cast of characters is truncated to such a degree that the embrace of the two Bernie's comes off as insignificant, as total strangers seeking comfort. There is no sympathy for them, for they come across as extras rather than as vital to the film's moral.

So... what works? Haley, Wilson, and Morgan work quite well, and secure a nice energy in those scenes where they appear. Although not always effective, I liked Ozymandias' overt Jeremy Irons in Dead Ringers vibe, where the sneer is perpetual even if it was overplayed and too obvious. And the opening montage was fantastic (save for the cheap JFK moment), with Silhouette's co-opting of the famous WW2 picture being the standout. And I agree with Spinal; by highlighting her death (and the metaphor of killing off the feared Other), she gained more importance and her specter-in-death here demands more coverage. And when Snyder moved away from fidelity to Gibbons' panels, some of the shots had a nice flow to them (specifically Rorschach and Big Figure in the bathroom).

number8

03-09-2009, 05:31 AM

Can you elaborate on this term? Not in regards to Watchmen, but Haneke.

I dunno, I've never been a fan of Haneke and I've railed against Funny Games many times before so I don't think I'm up for another argument on that, but in short: I find that the methods Haneke uses to convey his theses (ie. Funny Games' fourth wall breaking) diminishes his arguments, which is the problem I had with Watchmen.

number8

03-09-2009, 05:32 AM

Using IMDB.com as a barometer of good taste is a bad idea, sport.

No, but using it as a barometer of the general public's word of mouth is. Duh.

MadMan

03-09-2009, 05:59 AM

No, but using it as a barometer of the general public's word of mouth is. Duh.Well that too, of course.

http://members.cox.net/thescarecrow/obviousman.png

Psh. Dark Knight was #1. For like TWO MONTHS. THAT MEANS SOMETHING.Damnit I didn't realize you were joking. At least I hope you were originally.

You mean American History X isn't one of the 50 best movies of all time? :eek:Heh. Never seen it. I've heard good things.

Izzy Black

03-09-2009, 07:40 AM

I'm not sure if it has already been mentioned, but I found the attempts of incorporating philosophical references regarding utilitarianism to be completely shallow, and extra weight that the film just couldn't handle successfully

In what way? The graphic novel incorporated utilitarian themes, as well. I wouldn't exactly call them "references" - as though it is referencing some idea outside of itself. It is one of the driving ethical forces behind the entire story.

Boner M

03-09-2009, 11:33 AM

Gonna see this tomorrow. Haven't read the book. Dunno what to expect really. Anyone wanna predict my score?

Qrazy

03-09-2009, 04:33 PM

Gonna see this tomorrow. Haven't read the book. Dunno what to expect really. Anyone wanna predict my score?

55

Kurious Jorge v3.1

03-09-2009, 04:47 PM

Gonna see this tomorrow. Haven't read the book. Dunno what to expect really. Anyone wanna predict my score?

33

Ezee E

03-09-2009, 04:51 PM

MadMan

03-09-2009, 04:53 PM

Derek

03-09-2009, 04:53 PM

Watashi said it's not your kind of film, so this is testing my faith in his ability to pigeonhole posters' tastes when he suspects they will disagree with him.

48

Qrazy

03-09-2009, 05:05 PM

Watashi said it's not your kind of film, so this is testing my faith in his ability to pigeonhole posters' tastes when he suspects they will disagree with him.

48

Judging by your rating of The Sting I revise my previous rating to 38.

Furthermore boo-urns.

Lakeview Terrace (Labute, 2008) 60
The Sting (Hill, 1973) 55
Le Boucher (Chabrol, 1970) 54

balmakboor

03-09-2009, 05:20 PM

Gonna see this tomorrow. Haven't read the book. Dunno what to expect really. Anyone wanna predict my score?

45

NickGlass

03-09-2009, 05:22 PM

I spent a majority of the running time feeling really, really bad for the actors.

Izzy Black

03-09-2009, 06:09 PM

Gotta love quantifying art.

lovejuice

03-09-2009, 06:18 PM

I spent a majority of the running time feeling really, really bad for the actors.
why?

Raiders

03-09-2009, 06:25 PM

Gotta love quantifying art.

You're quantifying an opinion, not art.

transmogrifier

03-09-2009, 06:29 PM

Why is it that people only really get upset about quantifying art when the result disagrees with their own opinion?

Dead & Messed Up

03-09-2009, 06:36 PM

Why is it that people only really get upset about quantifying art when the result disagrees with their own opinion?

Honestly, it bothers me regardless. I don't like the idea of assigning a number or letter to my opinions, and I'm not sure why people get so particular (scales of a hundred, etc.), unless it's purposefully tongue-in-cheek.

I'd much rather talk about the art and get a dialogue going.

Izzy Black

03-09-2009, 06:38 PM

You're quantifying an opinion, not art.

The opinion is an evaluation; in other words, one is ascertaining how valuable something is. It is quantifying value, is it not? That is, using numbers to represent the relative value or worth of a given artwork. Or, in dictionary terms, expressing the quality of something in terms of quantity or numbers. If not, then when I say X object is 10 feet long, I am merely quantifying an opinion of the object - not the object. (Which is to say we never quantify anything.) Such a distinction strikes me as vague and insignificant.

Sycophant

03-09-2009, 06:40 PM

Jesus.

Izzy Black

03-09-2009, 06:40 PM

Why is it that people only really get upset about quantifying art when the result disagrees with their own opinion?

I am not upset at all! I do not even know what the actual score is. I just find it interesting. In fact, I invite criticism of a film. It is much less interesting when everyone agrees. I like discussion, and the best discussions are when people disagree. I find quantification somewhat problematic, but it an interesting topic nonetheless.

Izzy Black

03-09-2009, 06:43 PM

Honestly, it bothers me regardless. I don't like the idea of assigning a number or letter to my opinions, and I'm not sure why people get so particular (scales of a hundred, etc.), unless it's purposefully tongue-in-cheek.

I'd much rather talk about the art and get a dialogue going.

I am of this belief as well, but it does not necessarily bother me so much as intrigue me as to the reasonings and methods of quantification. Yes, it is clearly personal, but any opinion is personal, it is a matter of how we form those opinions. I actually used to rate films myself (scale from 1-10) and some of my favorite critics do this as well. So there are certainly arguments and defenses to be made for grading. They have some tangible and practical value. I dropped the scale system and ranking of films, but I am still curious about how we form our valuations of art.

Raiders

03-09-2009, 06:52 PM

The opinion is an evaluation; in other words, one is ascertaining how valuable something is. It is quantifying value, is it not? That is, using numbers to represent the relative value or worth of a given artwork. Or, in dictionary terms, expressing the quality of something in terms of quantity or numbers. If not, then when I say X object is 10 feet long, I am merely quantifying an opinion of the object - not the object. (Which is to say we never quantify anything.) Such a distinction strikes me as vague and insignificant.

But, in my argument, the opinion of the art would be the 'X,' not the art itself.

Izzy Black

03-09-2009, 06:59 PM

But, in my argument, the opinion of the art would be the 'X,' not the art itself.

What I am trying to point out is that this is essentially a non distinction. The 'X' could be just as well described as your opinion of the object's length. (As to your opinion of the object's artistic quality.) So, the art or object "itself" is relative. Quantifying assumes that you are quantifying the value/quality (a formed opinion) of something. It is representational.

Sycophant

03-09-2009, 07:02 PM

Really enjoyed this flick.

Is this a quantification of art, then?

jamaul

03-09-2009, 07:09 PM

A friend of mine was asking me about my opinion of Watchmen, I said imagine Synecdoche, New York fucked The Dark Knight, and thereafter TDK birthed a child. The offspring would look like Watchmen. For better and for worse.

Izzy Black

03-09-2009, 07:10 PM

Is this a quantification of art, then?

Well, no - it is an axiological assessment of quality. Quantifying would be attributing a numerical value or a standard of measurement to my evaluation of the work.

Raiders

03-09-2009, 07:29 PM

What I am trying to point out is that this is essentially a non distinction. The 'X' could be just as well described as your opinion of the object's length. (As to your opinion of the object's artistic quality.) So, the art or object "itself" is relative. Quantifying assumes that you are quantifying the value/quality (a formed opinion) of something. It is representational.

I guess I'm just getting hung up on the fact that to me, we are quantifying a valuation of the art's worth. Assigning a value directly to the art itself has no meaning whatsoever because it isn't contingent upon anything. Assigning a numerical value to your assessment of the art as an object of study does have some instrinic worth, at least insofar as using it to properly analyze yourself as a viewer of art.

So while certainly we could make 'X' anything we wanted, in this case to me the distinction does matter because as a valuation of an argument, given strictly by the commentator himself obviously, there is some worth there to make the distinction necessary.

BirdsAteMyFace

03-09-2009, 08:12 PM

In what way? The graphic novel incorporated utilitarian themes, as well. I wouldn't exactly call them "references" - as though it is referencing some idea outside of itself. It is one of the driving ethical forces behind the entire story.I haven't thoroughly read the graphic novel, but yeah, I assumed the utilitarianism was one of the film's foundational themes. I meant my statement in reference to the way in which the characters conversed, as well as the film itself -- a bit pretentious*, I thought.

*(Note: I feel dirty using that word, but it just had to be said.)

Izzy Black

03-09-2009, 08:13 PM

I guess I'm just getting hung up on the fact that to me, we are quantifying a valuation of the art's worth.

We are indeed quantifying a valuation of the art's worth. I am not disputing this, but what I am saying is that this does not particularly distinguish it from how we quantify the next thing, since everything is quantified based on a valuation. Perhaps you are emphasizing that the object itself has no value independent of your opinion of it, but this does not really say anything about attribution. You can say the same thing about money. It has no value independent of our opinion of it. Yet, we still quantify money. A great example is quantifying the value of, say, an object that we can buy. Perhaps your argument is that the value (say, 5$) is not an inherent property of the object, but such a distinction seems insignificant. It is still the object's quantitative value because we have ascribed it such quantitative value.

Assigning a value directly to the art itself has no meaning whatsoever because it isn't contingent upon anything. Assigning a numerical value to your assessment of the art as an object of study does have some instrinic worth, at least insofar as using it to properly analyze yourself as a viewer of art.

But it is contingent upon your standards of quality! You are not numerically rating your opinion ("My opinion is a 5.7 out of 10!"). You are numerically rating the artwork ("My opinion is that the artwork is worth 5.7 out of 10"). In other words, I am not sure what it even means to say, "assigning value directly to the artwork itself" other than that you are assigning value to art. It is more basic: Do you value the artwork? If so, then you have assigned meaning to it. How much do you value it? Is it quantifiable? You have shown us that you believe it is, quite so! (Even if only quantifying it by your own private standards.) The next question is, What are you standards of measurement? This is where things get complicated.

So while certainly we could make 'X' anything we wanted, in this case to me the distinction does matter because as a valuation of an argument, given strictly by the commentator himself obviously, there is some worth there to make the distinction necessary.

The distinction, again, seems relatively non-existent. The difference in a judgment of artistic quality is that there are more variables to measure than just, say, a visual judgment. In art, we also have to measure variables of emotion, cultural telos, and other internal qualities of the mind that cannot necessarily be verified or even articulated/clarified. If these things of quality were accessible to everyone, then a person's measurements could be verified by a person's standards by anyone.

Izzy Black

03-09-2009, 08:20 PM

I haven't thoroughly read the graphic novel, but yeah, I assumed the utilitarianism was one of the film's foundational themes. I meant my statement in reference to the way in which the characters conversed, as well as the film itself -- a bit pretentious*, I thought.

*(Note: I feel dirty using that word, but it just had to be said.)

Fair enough, I suppose. I could see how, perhaps, some of the post-9/11 allusions that were tied in as they relate to utilitarian problems might have occurred as in some way contrived or underdeveloped. The Dark Knight suffered similar criticisms, I believe. I think there may be some validity to the claim, but at the same time, it seems any film dealing with a post-9/11 milieu, philosophically or politically, will have hurdles to jump. I think this film fared better than most in this respect - at least, in my view.

Boner M

03-09-2009, 08:42 PM

Israfel,

http://www.chaoticnoise.com/images/uploaded/matt/Frankie_says_relax_t-shirt.jpg

DavidSeven

03-09-2009, 08:57 PM

Watchmen Walkouts? (http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.c om/talking_pictures/2009/03/who-watches-those-who-walk-out-of-watchmen.html)

Never have I seen as many people walk out of a movie as I saw during a Saturday showing of “Watchmen.”

The couple behind me argued for 45 minutes about who was who and what was happening and why is that man blue and was this scene happening now or did these events happen in the past and, holy crap, why are we now on Mars; eventually, they gave up and laughed their way through the exit doors. (And they were not shushed.)

A father seated in front of me, accompanied by antsy young boys, shifted uncomfortably with every splatter of brain; he sank lower into his seat at the arrival of a nude Dr. Manhattan’s fully exposed Little Dr. Manhattan then gathered up his stuff and bolted during the fairly explicit sex between Night Owl and Silk Spectre in the back of the Owl Mobile – or whatever it’s called. (The movie is rated R.)

It’s hard to say exactly when the trickle became an exodus – but maybe a quarter of the theater walked.

Indeed, it appears this phenomenon is not unique to Chicago: An extensive report on Popten.net described “mass walkouts” of a New York screening; and corey3rd on hollywood-elsewhere.com claims one-third of his audience bolted, too.

Watashi

03-09-2009, 09:00 PM

Working at a movie theater, I know that most movie-goers are stupid. They don't check ratings or plot synopsis. Most times they just go by reccomandations from the box-office employees.

Sycophant

03-09-2009, 09:03 PM

If we get a wiki or something, we should create a page that links to every debate we've had about the absolute or relative merits of ratings systems. We can show it to potential new members to see if they really want in.

Sycophant

03-09-2009, 09:03 PM

Most times they just go by reccomandations from the box-office employees.

Is this true? Because it just ruined my day.

number8

03-09-2009, 09:06 PM

This comment is hilarious:

I hated the movie...this is not a super heroes movie, it is about people that happen to have extra powers and used them on a bad way.

OMG SAY IT AIN'T SO!

NickGlass

03-09-2009, 09:07 PM

why?

I really don't care much about all this Watchmen hoopla, but you don't need to look very hard to notice the horrible acting (for which the terrible dialogue should be partly held culpable), abysmal pacing and disjointed (and not in a good way) narrative. Tantamount to those flaws, though, is that the film seems to fetishize everything that the original source intended to expose. Aside from American anxiety/paranoia and superhero deconstructionism, it's a sort-of parody of fallen bigwigs within a capitalist world, but nearly every
hokey calculation in the film seemed to be a decision made by the director in hopes that it would look cool, or by big companies hoping to gain massive profits from greasy 19-year-old boys. There are some very talented actors in the cast (Wilson, Crudup), and they just stumbled through, happy they are part of a product so large, yet seeming really embarrassed in the moment.

I haven't read the graphic novel, but I get what it was going for (and what the film misunderstood in a messy, big-time Hollywood way), and all I can salvage is a bunch of half-baked capital-b Big Issues mixed in with "cool" graphic violence and lame-brained sexuality. Don't even get me started on the depiction of females. It's probably symptomatic of why I generally dislike the genre. I most certainly agree with Spinal that so much of the film is more concerned with "being awesome," as opposed to challenging the viewer with its ideas.

number8

03-09-2009, 09:07 PM

Is this true? Because it just ruined my day.

Yes, I've seen it happen often. They look at a title, they ask the emloyee what it is, then ask "Is it good?"

Watashi

03-09-2009, 09:08 PM

Is this true? Because it just ruined my day.
It happens every day.

Customer: I haven't heard of any of these movies. What do you suggest?

Me: Well, I really liked Benjamin Button, but it's not for everyone and is 3 hours long.

Customer: That's the one with Brad Pitt in it? That sounds nice. One for that one please.

::30 minutes later::

Customer: This movie is boring. It's too weird and doesn't make any sense.

Me: Le sigh.

Watashi

03-09-2009, 09:11 PM

One of my favorite general public Watchmen moments was watching the trailer for it before Gran Torino.

At the end of the trailer where Rorschach goes "The world will look up and shout save us and I'll whisper no". Some old lady near the front went "well, that wasn't very nice". I could barely hold my laughter.

Watashi

03-09-2009, 09:12 PM

Can't a film be awesome and both challenge the viewer? I didn't know they had to be separated.

number8

03-09-2009, 09:13 PM

I love these comments!

This movie was horrible. I brought my 12 & 15 year old. I will admit I did not do my research as I normally do but I though what do I have to worry about it is a superhero movie. Man was I wrong! I was very happy that my 12 yr old fell asleep before any of the sex scenes. The blood & gore was not that bad I have seen worse in some video games. I can not belive the movie got an R rating it should have been X rated.

eternity

03-09-2009, 09:37 PM

Do people still really think that the X rating still exists?

number8

03-09-2009, 09:39 PM

Do people still really think that the X rating still exists?

I think it's just a way to call the movie pornography.

Uh oh.

Henry Gale

03-09-2009, 10:10 PM

Having thought about it since I saw it on Friday (and since then being thoroughly entertained by this thread and reactions elsewhere), I have to say that I really enjoyed it, thought the ending was perfectly fine for this telling of the story, was really impressed by the performances, etc. BUT, my problems with the movie can be summarized best by the JFK shot in the opening credits.

Basically to me showing the assassination and pulling back to show Morgan out of costume with a smoking rifle in his hand is the best case for the movie's problem of sacrificing subtext for pretty visuals. In the comic, the Comedian's line of "don't ask me where I was the day Kennedy died" works so well because it's dropped in the middle of a conversation about drugs in that era with a slight possibility he is referring to his shady government work over the years. But of course Snyder decides that not only was he most definitely speaking as if it were the latter, but that presenting it is not only important but necessary for the audience to take in so early into the picture.

The best thing I can say about it is that it doesn't entirely misinterpret the themes of the novel and that it's still an extremely interesting, entertaining little movie. I just wish it weren't so many people's first experience with the material and I hope Snyder's extended cut brings me more into an atmosphere of a place similar to what I feel when I read Moore and Gibbons' pages.

number8

03-09-2009, 10:25 PM

So here's a question. Are you guys going to see the Director's Cut, or are you going to wait for the 3.5 hours Ultimate Cut that has the Black Freighter spliced in?

BirdsAteMyFace

03-09-2009, 10:26 PM

Snyder's extended cutMore blue penis? :eek:

Sycophant

03-09-2009, 10:26 PM

More blue penis? :eek:

Just longer.

lovejuice

03-09-2009, 11:15 PM

More blue penis? :eek:

Just longer.

he's dr. manhattan. why can't it be both? step aside. mr. fantastic!

Spinal

03-09-2009, 11:51 PM

People shocked by R-rated content in an R-rated movie should be kicked repeatedly in the genitals.

KK2.0

03-09-2009, 11:52 PM

i enjoyed the movie but agree with many criticisms, i admit the main reason for me liking it was out of pure fan-service most of the time.

regarding the whole talk about violence and sex/nudity, i was surprised a big budget studio movie actually came out intact like this, dunno who Snyder had to blow at the MPAA but i hope it's not an isolated case, i miss popcorn movies more oriented to adults rather than teenagers.

the crowd was silent most of the movie also, turning heads on the more gruesome violence, i've noticed a couple walking out early on, a few laughs at Rorschach prison line, more laughs to the Hallelujah sex (obviously intentional, after shrek used this song, it's ruined for any attempts of seriousness).

i'm probably getting the Director's Cut, for the extra fan-service

Skitch

03-10-2009, 12:59 AM

So here's a question. Are you guys going to see the Director's Cut, or are you going to wait for the 3.5 hours Ultimate Cut that has the Black Freighter spliced in?

Both. I would have been fine with the movie being longer. Fastest 3 hours I ever spent in a theater.

jamaul

03-10-2009, 01:46 AM

Basically to me showing the assassination and pulling back to show Morgan out of costume with a smoking rifle in his hand is the best case for the movie's problem of sacrificing subtext for pretty visuals. In the comic, the Comedian's line of "don't ask me where I was the day Kennedy died" works so well because it's dropped in the middle of a conversation about drugs in that era with a slight possibility he is referring to his shady government work over the years. But of course Snyder decides that not only was he most definitely speaking as if it were the latter, but that presenting it is not only important but necessary for the audience to take in so early into the picture.

I would agree, but I loved the fluid pan from Kennedy shot, in the background, to Comedian with gun in foreground. It was one of the many instances in the movie where I would commend Snyder for handling something that could have been done gratuitiously instead with a surprising amount of style and grace. The opening credits sequence is, to me, one of the film's greatest achievements: it tells so much in such little time, but that's not even its biggest feat - the most impressive thing about it is that it contains so much detail and texture, and does so with no dialogue.

number8

03-10-2009, 02:00 AM

Zack Snyder would be a pretty great music video director.

Spinal

03-10-2009, 02:02 AM

I would agree that the credit sequence is excellent, but the shot of Kennedy with half his head blown off is, for me, the most gratuitous, objectionable image in the film.

MadMan

03-10-2009, 02:37 AM

So here's a question. Are you guys going to see the Director's Cut, or are you going to wait for the 3.5 hours Ultimate Cut that has the Black Freighter spliced in?If they come out on DVD, yes. But if it was released in theaters? Hell no.

And it wasn't the violence that made me feel a bit squeamish at times, but rather the gore. Just cause some of it was really, really in your face and obvious. Maybe I just failed to recall that being the case in the graphic novel (its been a couple of months since I last read it), or that gore in general makes me a bit uneasy. The latter might be more true than the former.

Oh and LOL at the people who, in the era of the Internet, newspaper film reviews, and tons of info at their fingertips go into movies not knowing about them or even a small hint of what happens in them. I don't feel sorry for them at all. Do your goddamn homework. Its really easy.

jamaul

03-10-2009, 02:37 AM

I would agree that the credit sequence is excellent, but the shot of Kennedy with half his head blown off is, for me, the most gratuitous, objectionable image in the film.

Right. Cuz that never happened, right?

Spinal

03-10-2009, 02:44 AM

Right. Cuz that never happened, right?

I have no idea what your point is.

jamaul

03-10-2009, 02:56 AM

Spinal

03-10-2009, 03:05 AM

For one thing, it was shot almost exactly the way the newsreels show it: extreme wide. Plus, the camera never makes it an obvious focal point . . . it's happening in the background as the camera is panning right to its actual subject. Explain how this is gratuitous.

Oh yeah, and the part about it happening: JFK got the back of his head blown off. Oliver Stone showed the footage, and also staged it from alternate angles (if I'm not mistaken) in JFK.

JFK is a film about JFK. Watchmen is not. The footage adds nothing of substance to the film's plot or themes. It is an image of a recent American president with half of his face blown off. This is an historical figure still beloved by many who are alive today and who experienced great pain when he was assassinated. The film uses an inflammatory and emotional historical image, uses no restraint in regards to the gory details and does so for no good reason. That, to me, is the very definition of gratuitous.