Watchmen - Spoilers like a Psychic Undersea Gargant!

Rot your brains, then rot our boards

Moderators: SecondTalon, Moderators General, Prelates

Spuddly
Posts: 264
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 7:11 pm UTC

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Spuddly » Thu Mar 12, 2009 12:05 pm UTC

el_loco_avs wrote:
Spuddly wrote:There were a bunch of stupid gags in there that were stupid, like the flame thrower going off as hight hawk is ejaculating. I mean what the fuck. Haha, you just reminded me this is a movie.


Only the comic did the exact same thing. It's lame, yes, but intended I think. Just a mood-breaker of sorts.


1. What poor storytelling techniques the comic used are irrelevant.
2. I imagine that at $750,000 per minute, everything is intended.
3. Mood-breakers are dumb. I like coherency in mood. Goofball cliches aren't any less stupid. Night hawk shouting "nooooo!" at the end? Lame. Who does that? Oh wait, everyone.
Give me your eyes;
I need sunshine.

Klapaucius
Posts: 712
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 11:00 pm UTC

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Klapaucius » Thu Mar 12, 2009 12:46 pm UTC

el_loco_avs wrote:
Spuddly wrote:There were a bunch of stupid gags in there that were stupid, like the flame thrower going off as hight hawk is ejaculating. I mean what the fuck. Haha, you just reminded me this is a movie.


Only the comic did the exact same thing. It's lame, yes, but intended I think. Just a mood-breaker of sorts.
In the conic, it was used less as comic relief than as a symbolic device to imply the, er, act. Because, in the comic, the sex wasn't explicitly shown, and certainly didn't last for an hour and a half.
500%!

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26516
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby SecondTalon » Thu Mar 12, 2009 2:17 pm UTC

As the soundtrack keeps being brought up, and for good reason... I'll say it had to be the most uninspired soundtrack I've ever heard. Nothing in it made me even pause for a moment to wonder why this song and not another... they might as well have had subtitles at the bottom saying "SEE HOW THIS SONG IS TALKING ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON? LOL!"

I can't say it was a horrible soundtrack, because it wasn't. But it was the kind of soundtrack a teenager would use. Everything was such an obvious choice. I mean, I don't exactly expect to be mentally challenged by the soundtrack, but I don't expect to be jolted out of the movie by the wet fish of obviousness slapping me in the face either.

Re: Rorschach's Mask.
Spoiler:
I loved every bit of it except how the omitted what it came from. I mean.. you don't have to tell us it's some experimental latex fabric (as I never really liked the idea of it being a latex material that required special heated tools to cut, as.. basically that'd just be like putting a latex glove or a condom over your head. Assuming you figured a way around the breathing problem, the "fabric" isn't going to breath and your head will be a sweaty, uncomfortable mess)... you don't have to tell us that he took the material and held on to it for a while before making the mask... Just a simple, five minute scene explaining how his face is a sign of man's inhumanity to man which I always thought added quite a bit.
Rorschach had a job at a seamstress shop. One of the things Doc Manhattan had come up with was the color shifting fabric, and a woman had ordered a dress made out of it. Took a look at it, said something about it being hideous, refused to pay for it, take it, etc. Rorschach liked it quite a bit and had no idea what she was talking about, so he ended up stealing it and some extra fabric, if I recall correctly. A time later, I forget if this was months or years, he hears about a woman who was stabbed and raped on the street with several witnesses watching from their apartments, but no one making the effort to call the cops or try to stop it. That event pushed Rorschach over the edge, and he made a mask out of the material and started crimefighting.

Maybe they left that part out because of it's historical base.


I don't think the casting choices were bad, and I had no problems with the acting. All of my problems with it cinematically are the overactivehyperviolenceporn scenes. Well, that and that I thing Snyder and I read two different books. There is just something about the whole thing that I can't quite verbalize yet that struck me as wrong. I'll probably figure it out later.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8529
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Zohar » Thu Mar 12, 2009 2:27 pm UTC

SecondTalon wrote:As the soundtrack keeps being brought up, and for good reason... I'll say it had to be the most uninspired soundtrack I've ever heard. Nothing in it made me even pause for a moment to wonder why this song and not another... they might as well have had subtitles at the bottom saying "SEE HOW THIS SONG IS TALKING ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON? ¡This cheese is burning me!!"


It almost felt like a musical at some points, but the reason I still enjoyed it was because I loved the songs.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

bigstrat2003
Posts: 420
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 2:18 am UTC

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby bigstrat2003 » Thu Mar 12, 2009 2:57 pm UTC

SecondTalon wrote:As the soundtrack keeps being brought up, and for good reason... I'll say it had to be the most uninspired soundtrack I've ever heard. Nothing in it made me even pause for a moment to wonder why this song and not another... they might as well have had subtitles at the bottom saying "SEE HOW THIS SONG IS TALKING ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON? ¡This cheese is burning me!!"

I can't say it was a horrible soundtrack, because it wasn't. But it was the kind of soundtrack a teenager would use. Everything was such an obvious choice. I mean, I don't exactly expect to be mentally challenged by the soundtrack, but I don't expect to be jolted out of the movie by the wet fish of obviousness slapping me in the face either.


That's what makes it a good soundtrack. A soundtrack that makes you wonder why they chose the song they did is a very bad soundtrack... the music should fit like a glove to support the movie, not be something which ever grabs your attention and makes you consider it, instead of what's going on.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Izawwlgood » Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:01 pm UTC

I still think the music was fitting. The songs played were historically significant tunes for OUR history, and Watchman is an alternative history. Seeing new images over familiar songs, especially historically charged images that play out differently (I forgot all about the scene where the flower child puts the daisy in the barrel of the gun).

The point wasn't to say "Get it, this song represents SOCIAL CHANGE!", it was to say "Remember what was happening when this song was espousing it's virtues? Look how differently that all could have gone"
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Spuddly
Posts: 264
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 7:11 pm UTC

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Spuddly » Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:27 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:I still think the music was fitting. The songs played were historically significant tunes for OUR history, and Watchman is an alternative history. Seeing new images over familiar songs, especially historically charged images that play out differently (I forgot all about the scene where the flower child puts the daisy in the barrel of the gun).

The point wasn't to say "Get it, this song represents SOCIAL CHANGE!", it was to say "Remember what was happening when this song was espousing it's virtues? Look how differently that all could have gone"


Yeah.
I think the choice of music was probably the best part of the movie.
Give me your eyes;
I need sunshine.

User avatar
Azrael001
Posts: 2385
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 5:15 am UTC
Location: The Land of Make Believe.
Contact:

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Azrael001 » Thu Mar 12, 2009 4:00 pm UTC

I actually felt something during the flower child scene, and I wasn't even part of that generation, let allone culture.
23111

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26516
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby SecondTalon » Thu Mar 12, 2009 4:04 pm UTC

bigstrat2003 wrote:
SexyTalon wrote:As the soundtrack keeps being brought up, and for good reason... I'll say it had to be the most uninspired soundtrack I've ever heard. Nothing in it made me even pause for a moment to wonder why this song and not another... they might as well have had subtitles at the bottom saying "SEE HOW THIS SONG IS TALKING ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON? ¡This cheese is burning me!!"

I can't say it was a horrible soundtrack, because it wasn't. But it was the kind of soundtrack a teenager would use. Everything was such an obvious choice. I mean, I don't exactly expect to be mentally challenged by the soundtrack, but I don't expect to be jolted out of the movie by the wet fish of obviousness slapping me in the face either.


That's what makes it a good soundtrack. A soundtrack that makes you wonder why they chose the song they did is a very bad soundtrack... the music should fit like a glove to support the movie, not be something which ever grabs your attention and makes you consider it, instead of what's going on.
You misunderstand what I'm saying. A good soundtrack doesn't make you think about the soundtrack at all. This soundtrack had me groaning at the selections for being so obvious. Obvious to the point of a hipster at a County Fair wearing a Keep On Truckin' Vintage T-Shirt and Cowboy Boots saying he's being Ironic.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
Azrael001
Posts: 2385
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 5:15 am UTC
Location: The Land of Make Believe.
Contact:

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Azrael001 » Thu Mar 12, 2009 4:33 pm UTC

It is refreshing though. I don't care if it's obvious, most other movies don't use the obvious songs, therefore obvious songs are not obvious?
23111

annals
Posts: 330
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 11:24 pm UTC

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby annals » Thu Mar 12, 2009 5:00 pm UTC

I just stumbled across this article on Easter eggs in the movie. I hadn't noticed some of these, especially the first.

Klapaucius
Posts: 712
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 11:00 pm UTC

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Klapaucius » Thu Mar 12, 2009 5:22 pm UTC

annals wrote:I just stumbled across this article on Easter eggs in the movie. I hadn't noticed some of these, especially the first.
The Last Supper retirement party thing irked me, because it was blunt and apropos of nothing. But Justice and Metropolis together in the corner almost saves it for me.
500%!

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Izawwlgood » Thu Mar 12, 2009 6:04 pm UTC

Mick Jagger AND David Bowie! Hot sex!
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
steewi
Posts: 873
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 3:38 am UTC
Location: Tropical Nowhere

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby steewi » Fri Mar 13, 2009 4:17 am UTC

The weird thing about the Last Supper is that The Comedian is in Judas Iscariot's place to Sally Jupiter's Jesus. Hooded Justice is Simon the Zealot, Silk Spectre's publicist is Thomas the Doubter, and Nite Owl is James (the greater). Mothman, Silhouette and Silhouette's girlfriend are the minor apostles Bartholomew, James the lesser and Andrew.

Did anyone else notice the phallus on the Comedian's mantlepiece? It seemed odd.

User avatar
Clumpy
Posts: 1883
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:48 am UTC
Contact:

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Clumpy » Fri Mar 13, 2009 6:36 am UTC

Okay, the opening credits sequence is officially so good it nearly brings tears to my eyes.

link

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26516
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby SecondTalon » Fri Mar 13, 2009 3:22 pm UTC

Azrael001 wrote:It is refreshing though. I don't care if it's obvious, most other movies don't use the obvious songs, therefore obvious songs are not obvious?
See... I guess I figure that you get One per movie. One Obvious Song Choice per showing. One.

The Times They Are a-Changin' over the opening credits that is showing.. times changing? A little of a sledgehammer to the ears, but okay. There's your one.

Sound of Silence at a Funeral? Seriously?

Hallelujah during a sex scene? At this point I can only assume I'm watching a comedy.

All Along The Watchtower as.. they're... approaching a watchtower-like structure...... Now I can only conclude that this is farce.

Every damn time the music started up it was a jolt through my brain. And not the pleasant kind of jolt. That's four off the top of my head. I don't remember the context of the 99 Luftballons bit, but it probably had something to do with Dr. Manhattan.

But.. whatever. You dug it, that's cool. I found the soundtrack cringe-inducing.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8529
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Zohar » Fri Mar 13, 2009 3:37 pm UTC

SecondTalon wrote:All Along The Watchtower as.. they're... approaching a watchtower-like structure......


I only recognized that because I watch BSG...
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
Macbi
Posts: 941
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 8:32 am UTC
Location: UKvia

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Macbi » Fri Mar 13, 2009 4:06 pm UTC

SecondTalon wrote: I don't remember the context of the 99 Luftballons bit, but it probably had something to do with Dr. Manhattan.
Dan and Laurie at the restaurant, as it turns out.
    Indigo is a lie.
    Which idiot decided that websites can't go within 4cm of the edge of the screen?
    There should be a null word, for the question "Is anybody there?" and to see if microphones are on.

User avatar
Delbin
Posts: 472
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 7:50 pm UTC

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Delbin » Fri Mar 13, 2009 10:01 pm UTC

[quote="Spuddly"]
Spoiler:
The beginning with everyone standing as if in a photograph was really cool. I just don't like how they never explained how all the superheros got their superpowers. Alright; I know that technically they didn't have "superpowers", but some dude made an anti-gravity hovering UFO in his basement in the 70s, and they could all punch their way through a prison of hardened inmates who have known nothing but violence their entire life. Does putting on a mask in alternate 1980s America give you incredible fighting prowess, like that of someone from a milennial Hollywood action flick? It would have made more sense if all the fighting was done Die Hard style.[/
quote]

These are largely carryovers from the comic. In the comic, Dr. Manhattan already created or helped create all these advancements in energy technology, so the hovercraft is a result of that. Nite Owl is a trust fund baby and could simply afford to buy all this stuff.

Sally Jupiter was trained literally her entire life to be a hero and one can assume there's some sort of gadget in Nite Owl's costume to help him fight better. Fighting gangs of poorly trained thugs are what these people do. It's perhaps a bit over the top, but they are supposed to be heroes and with that comes a bit of inherant awesomeness.

User avatar
beyondweird
Posts: 304
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:41 am UTC
Location: Oxford/North West England
Contact:

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby beyondweird » Sat Mar 14, 2009 6:45 am UTC

SecondTalon wrote:
Azrael001 wrote:It is refreshing though. I don't care if it's obvious, most other movies don't use the obvious songs, therefore obvious songs are not obvious?
See... I guess I figure that you get One per movie. One Obvious Song Choice per showing. One.

...

But.. whatever. You dug it, that's cool. I found the soundtrack cringe-inducing.


If I remember rightly, many of the songs are quoted in the book at the end of chapters. I know the Watchtower one is for definite, which is why I loved it. Even if they are obvious.
Everybody has a secret world inside of them...No matter how dull and boring they are on the outside, inside them they've all got unimaginable, magnificent, wonderful, stupid, amazing worlds. Not just one world. Hundreds of them. Thousands maybe.

User avatar
smw543
Posts: 1248
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:45 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby smw543 » Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:45 am UTC

beyondweird wrote:If I remember rightly, many of the songs are quoted in the book at the end of chapters. I know the Watchtower one is for definite, which is why I loved it. Even if they are obvious.
Only two: All Along the Watchtower (end of issue 11, same place as in the movie) and Desolation Row (end of issue 1,) both Dylan songs. And both were covered for the movie. I suppose it was necessary, most kids these days wouldn't stand for three Dylan songs in one movie - plus I've always been partial to the Hendrix version of Watchtower - but that My Chemical Romance cover was nauseating.

I'm inclined to agree with ST that the soundtrack choices were too obvious. Except Watchmen is immune to such criticism; it's all part of the deconstruction of the Superhero movie genre...[/cop out]
Spoiler:
LE4dGOLEM wrote:Now you know the difference between funny and sad.
Ubik wrote:But I'm too fond of the penis to let it go.
gmalivuk wrote:If you didn't want people to 'mis'understand you, then you probably should have tried saying something less stupid.

Jack Saladin
X is kiss
Posts: 4445
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:22 am UTC
Location: Aotearoa

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Jack Saladin » Sat Mar 14, 2009 9:08 am UTC

The movie isn't really a 'deconstruction' of superheroes at this point, anyway. Maybe the comic was, in its day (though I'd say it was more just superheroes with added alcoholism and attempted rape than proper literary deconstruction but whatever), but that's just what superheroes are like now. Rorschach looks like a total pussy compared to what went on in comics during the 90s.

User avatar
smw543
Posts: 1248
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:45 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby smw543 » Sat Mar 14, 2009 9:39 am UTC

Jack Saladin wrote:The movie isn't really a 'deconstruction' of superheroes at this point, anyway. Maybe the comic was, in its day (though I'd say it was more just superheroes with added alcoholism and attempted rape than proper literary deconstruction but whatever), but that's just what superheroes are like now. Rorschach looks like a total pussy compared to what went on in comics during the 90s.
Hence the "[/cop out]" In my experience, every time someone criticizes some aspect of Watchmen (the comic,) someone else will point out that it was intentional - as part of the deconstruction. I thought I'd carry over the practice to blindly defending every aspect of the movie, as well.
Spoiler:
LE4dGOLEM wrote:Now you know the difference between funny and sad.
Ubik wrote:But I'm too fond of the penis to let it go.
gmalivuk wrote:If you didn't want people to 'mis'understand you, then you probably should have tried saying something less stupid.

Jack Saladin
X is kiss
Posts: 4445
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:22 am UTC
Location: Aotearoa

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Jack Saladin » Sat Mar 14, 2009 9:51 am UTC

Oh yeah? Well I thought I'd carry my fist over into your face.

User avatar
Jesse
Vocal Terrorist
Posts: 8635
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 6:33 pm UTC
Location: Basingstoke, England.
Contact:

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Jesse » Sat Mar 14, 2009 12:00 pm UTC

That'd not gonna do a lot of damage. You need to try swinging it.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Izawwlgood » Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:24 pm UTC

smw543 wrote:I thought I'd carry over the practice to blindly defending every aspect of the movie, as well.


Ahh, the ever present attitude here of 'If someone disagrees with me, it's because they're stupid'
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Actaeus
Posts: 606
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 9:21 pm UTC
Location: ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Actaeus » Sat Mar 14, 2009 6:47 pm UTC

Jack Saladin wrote:The movie isn't really a 'deconstruction' of superheroes at this point, anyway. Maybe the comic was, in its day (though I'd say it was more just superheroes with added alcoholism and attempted rape than proper literary deconstruction but whatever), but that's just what superheroes are like now. Rorschach looks like a total pussy compared to what went on in comics during the 90s.

If you haven't read it, don't comment on it.
Rip apart the movie all you like, but keep in mind that it's a movie specifically made with Watchmen fans in mind. That's where a lot of the problems come from; Snyder isn't very good at mocking himself, and really wants the fans to be happy. Moore didn't give a shit what the readers thought.

User avatar
Jesse
Vocal Terrorist
Posts: 8635
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 6:33 pm UTC
Location: Basingstoke, England.
Contact:

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Jesse » Sat Mar 14, 2009 7:32 pm UTC

Jack Saladin has read the comic. Just to note.

User avatar
smw543
Posts: 1248
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:45 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby smw543 » Sat Mar 14, 2009 10:39 pm UTC

Jack Saladin wrote:Oh yeah? Well I thought I'd carry my fist over into your face.
Hey, I was just kidding. You can stop massaging my cheek with your fist (it's getting creepy.)
Spoiler:
LE4dGOLEM wrote:Now you know the difference between funny and sad.
Ubik wrote:But I'm too fond of the penis to let it go.
gmalivuk wrote:If you didn't want people to 'mis'understand you, then you probably should have tried saying something less stupid.

User avatar
r1chard
Posts: 281
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 2:17 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, AU
Contact:

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby r1chard » Mon Mar 16, 2009 12:07 am UTC

OK, saw it on the weekend. Thought it was great. Understood why some people walked out on it.

The first half was some of the best cinema I've seen, and I consider myself to have seen a lot of cinema. Thought the over-long sex scene was overly long and ruined my immersion in the film so the second half didn't feel as good as the first.

Most of the score was just awesome, some of it so-so.

My wife read the book in the week before, loved the film and thinks it's the best book companion film ever (up there with Pride and Prejudice, but that's a TV series ;) ) and I agree.

Jack Saladin
X is kiss
Posts: 4445
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:22 am UTC
Location: Aotearoa

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Jack Saladin » Mon Mar 16, 2009 12:31 am UTC

... I really don't know what people are saying about the really long sex scene? Did it get cut at my cinema or something? It really didn't seem any longer than the regular obligatory sex scene in any other film.

User avatar
Briareos
Posts: 1940
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:40 pm UTC
Location: Town of the Big House

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Briareos » Mon Mar 16, 2009 12:52 am UTC

I assume everyone means the post-tenement-fire scene. I do recall it being longer or (slightly) more explicit than generally-accepted sex scenes in movies today.
Sandry wrote:Bless you, Briareos.

Blriaraisghaasghoasufdpt.
Oregonaut wrote:Briareos is my new bestest friend.

Jack Saladin
X is kiss
Posts: 4445
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:22 am UTC
Location: Aotearoa

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Jack Saladin » Mon Mar 16, 2009 1:00 am UTC

More explicit?! Seriously? How? What the fuck sex scene did everyone else watch that I missed out on?

User avatar
Jesse
Vocal Terrorist
Posts: 8635
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 6:33 pm UTC
Location: Basingstoke, England.
Contact:

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Jesse » Mon Mar 16, 2009 1:01 am UTC

Basically, it looked actually like two characters having sex, unlike every other sex scene in films.

Jack Saladin
X is kiss
Posts: 4445
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:22 am UTC
Location: Aotearoa

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Jack Saladin » Mon Mar 16, 2009 1:04 am UTC

I tend to tune out and wonder what's for dinner whenever there's a sex scene in a film, so I can't even remember another scene to compare it to. Goddamn sex scenes are boring.

User avatar
Briareos
Posts: 1940
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:40 pm UTC
Location: Town of the Big House

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Briareos » Mon Mar 16, 2009 1:26 am UTC

What Jesse said.
Sandry wrote:Bless you, Briareos.

Blriaraisghaasghoasufdpt.
Oregonaut wrote:Briareos is my new bestest friend.

User avatar
r1chard
Posts: 281
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 2:17 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, AU
Contact:

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby r1chard » Mon Mar 16, 2009 1:42 am UTC

Jack Saladin wrote:I tend to tune out and wonder what's for dinner whenever there's a sex scene in a film, so I can't even remember another scene to compare it to. Goddamn sex scenes are boring.

This is my point. Until that scene I was engrossed in what was going on.

User avatar
steewi
Posts: 873
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 3:38 am UTC
Location: Tropical Nowhere

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby steewi » Mon Mar 16, 2009 1:49 am UTC

What made the sex scene overdone?

- Man-butt. Most people don't want to see it, and it was thrusting (Oh me yarm! Thrusting in sex!?)
- Over 30 seconds long
- Different music. I think the music did make a difference. If you have romantic music with strings and/or saxophone it's less gratuitous. As good a song as Hallelujah is, and as much as I can see the silliness of why they chose it, it lends itself to an air of gratuitous sex-hooray!
- Whole bodies. While you didn't actually see the penetration, you saw everything but, rather than carefully draped sheets.
- Long cuts. Most sex scenes (outside of porn) are short sweeping cuts over sliding body parts
- Lighting. The lighting was clear, rather than blue-lit, overcast, shadowy and/or badly contrasting.

These things can be found in a lot of movies, but they were all combined in that sex scene.

User avatar
cephalopod9
Posts: 2029
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:23 am UTC

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby cephalopod9 » Mon Mar 16, 2009 6:04 am UTC

Are you being sarcastic? That is basically a list of everything that bugs me about hollywood sex scenes.

Over all, it seems like people are confusing "gratuitous" with "beleiveable".

On a side note,
What is the right way to say "this is not a movie I feel comfortable seeing with my family"?
I loaned my dad a copy of the book, and while I do want to get accross that it was awesome, I don't think it's the right venue for a family outing.
Actaeus wrote:
Jack Saladin wrote:The movie isn't really a 'deconstruction' of superheroes at this point, anyway. Maybe the comic was, in its day (though I'd say it was more just superheroes with added alcoholism and attempted rape than proper literary deconstruction but whatever), but that's just what superheroes are like now. Rorschach looks like a total pussy compared to what went on in comics during the 90s.

If you haven't read it, don't comment on it.
Rip apart the movie all you like, but keep in mind that it's a movie specifically made with Watchmen fans in mind. That's where a lot of the problems come from; Snyder isn't very good at mocking himself, and really wants the fans to be happy. Moore didn't give a shit what the readers thought.
(quotes picked at random intervals)
It's difficult to judge things in retrospect. Is it better to judge them based on what they were for their time, or based on what they are now?
I suppose that's the difficult thing about making it into a movie. Watchmen means a lot of different things to different people, and a lot of people want very different things from the movie.
This might sound strange, but it kind of seems like Snyder chose to tread lightly. He doesn't go to the extreme depths the comic did, and he avoids retooling more than he has to; he could have made Bubastis a dog or something, but left her in instead.
Image

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: I am joyous. (Watchmen.)

Postby Malice » Mon Mar 16, 2009 6:54 am UTC

cephalopod9 wrote:This might sound strange, but it kind of seems like Snyder chose to tread lightly. He doesn't go to the extreme depths the comic did, and he avoids retooling more than he has to; he could have made Bubastis a dog or something, but left her in instead.


Which is just one example of a time when staying too faithful to the comic ended up hurting the film. He left in something that made no sense and wasn't explained, and then expected the audience to get the emotional payoff of that character's fate. It's like leaving in the Outer Limits reference (and making it more noticeable, in fact) when the thing that was referencing is no longer part of the story. Ultimately, while Snyder had good intentions, I feel like he went too far sometimes, and didn't understand the comic as well as he should have.

--

My review:

My thoughts kept changing afterwards; I didn't feel comfortable giving my opinion because it wasn't solid.

Now, though, I've seen it twice (once in "fake Imax", those jerks) and I feel stabilized. Spoilers may follow; proceed at your own risk.

When I first saw it, I came out of the theater with the sense of, "That was extremely entertaining and extraordinarily flawed." Snyder made some very odd choices, and a few actual mistakes (Malin Ackerman, for instance).

Seeing it again, though, I was much more able to get away from the comic and look at how it worked on its own, and it works surprisingly well to put you in the moment. Despite some acting lapses, the characterization is there, it's generally correct (Veidt being kind of the big exception), it's interesting, it's thematically relevant. The basic meaning of the plot is still there, and they did an excellent job of simplifying a very complicated story into a neat cause and effect line. In fact, I never got that good of an understanding from the comic, because the other details and twists and things kindof obscured the actual throughline of the story.

There are large swaths of the film that to me are basically perfect--the opening, for example, from the studio logos through to when Malin Ackerman first opens her mouth. After the egregious use of "Sound of Silence", the whole Comedian chapter is extremely well-done. Skip the bad acting and terrible writing in the Silk Spectre 1 and 2, and then you're good through at least the end of Manhattan's stuff. So on and so forth. The flaws are really dwarfed for the most part, moment to moment, by the visceral and intellectual pleasures of near-perfect adaptation.

The stuff that still bothers me, though, are the pieces that hurt the film as a whole.
-A second viewing has shown me that there is some complexity there to reward study, but not nearly as much as in the comic.
-Veidt's portrayal is incredibly one-dimensional, which really hurts the last act of the movie when they start alluding to complexities they never really established (represented perfectly by the fact that Bubastis just comes out of nowhere and is never explained, but they still expect you to get its last scene).
-Snyder's love on the one hand of strange levels of ultraviolence (making all the heroes "overly strong", having Dan and Laurie slaughter those thugs) and his simultaneous distaste for showing the actual bloody aftermath of Veidt's plan is very strange, to say the least, and, while I don't want to get into accusations of character, it ends up weakening the movie's central moral conundrum.
-It's a shame, but occasionally the movie is simply too faithful to philosophy babble that reads well on the page but plays as way too purple on the screen.
-Pacing. Say what you will about Moore's comic (and it certainly has its own oddities and imperfections), it has essentially perfect pacing, every scene contributing precisely what it needed to, lasting the proper length, and constantly drawing you forward to the next scene and the next chapter. (It helps to skip the supplementals between chapters, though.) This version simply doesn't have that same drive, and although there's usually enough things going on that it doesn't actually drag, it doesn't have that same excitement that we feel again and again in the comic. One example will suffice--the comic has the scene between Dan and Laurie conclude with:
"I think we should spring Rorschach."
"...what?"
BAM next chapter.
The movie, instead, takes the time after that to have them go, "Well, why?" "Oh, because of all these reasons." "Wait, are you sure this is a good idea?" "No but I think we should do it anyway." It's totally unnecessary and it sucks all the excitement out of that moment.
Pacing is the main reason I'm looking forward to the 4 hour complete version--I honestly think making it longer will actually pace it better. This constant truncation is, I think, part of the problem both in terms of pacing and with characterization--Moore designs each chapter (those that look at specific characters) to have a beginning, a middle, and an end. More often than not, Snyder ends up cutting off the end (or most of it) in order to hurry on to the next scene, and again and again that screws up the rhythm and it leaves character and thematic analysis incomplete.

I could go on, but I don't want to. There are a lot of things I like about the movie as a whole.
-I think it works in the same context as Watchmen did in comics--by introducing ideas to the superhero genre that had never before been seen in that medium. Before the film I had never seen one superhero raping another, or the exploration of the psychopathic, sexual, and philosophical ideas underlying the vigilante, etc. I'm intensely curious to see how Hollywood will follow Watchmen's lead in that area (and hoping it won't be with mindless injections of r-rated material to otherwise ordinary stories).
-I like how it works as an 80s movie. When two characters walk down an alley and immediately a group of thugs decides to mess with them, that's an 80s movie. When a character puts on big ugly spectacles and sees a pretty girl through them, that's an 80s movie. When Veidt looks at them leaving and there's snow all around him and he's like "ach I'm so emo" and the music is all choir stuff, that's an 80s movie. When Dr. Manhattan is striding through Vietnam to "Ride of the Valkyries", exploding terrified soldiers, that's an 80s movie. It's deliciously over the top, and it works as both pastiche and as parody.
-I like most of the direction, the visual strategies, the acting (Manhattan, Dreiberg, and Rorschach are simply perfect, as are most of the bit players), most of the music choices, that excellent opening credits montage, and the different thematic elements Snyder decided to forefront (like Manhattan as God).

All in all, when it works, it sings, and when it doesn't work, by now I'm able to look past it.

"Inna final analysis," I think the comic is still better, but I think they're worthy companion pieces. I recently picked up this idea on the internet, and it sounds pat but it's totally true: Moore's graphic novel is a Rorschach test. His characters are there to represent different human reactions to the problems of life and death and sick human nature. Do you withdraw like Manhattan or Dreiberg? Exult in it like the Comedian? Fight it, like Laurie? Put your head down and bull through it, like Rorschach? Etc. And how you read the success or failure of their attempts, and how they relate to the whole of the work, ultimately says more about you than it does about the book. This movie, then, works as one director's interpretation of the material. It's by no means final or definitive; it's not necessarily the way you or I see the book; but it is the way HE sees the book, and that makes it fascinating.
Image


Return to “Movies and TV Shows”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests