For Radar

Annals of the Homestarmy

Monday, March 9. 2009

Posted by The Mad Giggler in Movies

Comments (10)
Trackbacks (0)

I'm still not sure from your post if you disapproved of the violence/nudity or just the whole bleak world filled with anti-heroes. I'll still defend the book, but I felt that the violence/nudity were magnified in the movie or maybe I just have better brain filters for a book than for a movie. I think the story is brilliant. It's not all that different from "1984" by Orwell and made me look at superheroes in a different way. I think the premise that humans cause their own misery is true and that without a god to step in and keep things under control, humans would very quickly cause a "mutual assured destruction." The Book of Mormon is very clear on that. Two civilizations wiped themselves out, and I think our world is on the fast track right now (which makes me grateful for the promises of divine intervention before that happens). For someone like Moore, that must be terrifying.

For everyone else interested:

I felt like they could have made Watchmen PG-13 and still told the same story. There's no longer a CCA (for all intents and purposes) to rebel against, so no need to go over the top with stuff. By the end of the movie I honestly couldn't enjoy the fight sequences because I was worried I'd catch a bone sticking out of someone's body or something. I was caught off-guard a few times by the female nudity, but managed to close my eyes (or have them covered thanks to Daboo) for most of those scenes. And of course Dr. Manhattan's parts could have been obscured a lot more often than they were. If you watch a lot of R-rated stuff (and I don't - I can't remember the last "R" I watched before the Matrix trilogy,) maybe this stuff won't bother you.

On the bright side, the acting ranged from fair to excellent and the cinematography was superb. Rorschach was pretty much perfect and the prison scenes with him were great, though I had to close my eyes during the scene with the saw (again, we didn't need to SEE it). I liked that they made Nite Owl a slightly stronger character, although I bet Alan Moore would disagree with that assessment.

I thought the change to the ending was interesting, but I prefer the ending in the comic because I think 9/11 answered exactly what would happen in the case of such a thing actually happening. The world was united as one. . .for about a year. To me that underlines just how pointless the whole exercise was and how easily the New Frontiersman could undermine "World Peace." Daboo and I argued about whether the change the movie made would work better, and I'm not sure it would (although she's convinced it would last at least 100 years.)

To summarize, I would highly recommend a PG-13 version of this movie, but as it stands I don't think the crap you have to put up with is worth it. I have an imagination, and it's fully capable of filling the gaps this movie felt it needed to spell out for me.

Oh, and frak you AoD for slowly turning me into a libertarian. h8chu so bad.

I would like to get comments from people who really liked the movie to balance this out.

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

That Guy Silk Spectre Stabbed in the Neck on :

Eh, spoiler warning.

I really enjoyed the film, even if I found myself cringing a bit at times. I didn't take too much issue with the violence though because I already knew it was going to be like that. The book has a ton of bloody scenes, and I think I naturally set those static pages in motion in my mind, so I almost felt like I had seen most of that stuff before.

I really only had two complaints about the film. I understand that Nite Owl and Silk Spectre (note: it's NOT Dan and Julie) got busy in Archie, but the film version felt very...uh, pornographic to me. I get that they're all excited because they just felt alive again for the first time in years, but the scene felt totally devoid of humanity and tenderness. It seemed like two animals going at it. Maybe that's what the director wanted, but it was a bit much for me.

The other thing I didn't like was that Nite Owl witnessed Rorschach's final scene. He was supposed to be off with Silk Spectre, not witnessing Rorschach's final moral stand. I'd rather the audience be left wondering how Dan/Nite Owl would have reacted, rather than see it.

The mood and setting were captured perfectly, and everything felt as messed up as it should be. Without some of the hyper and in your face violence, I feel that you run the risk of making this a little too campy or fantastic. It's tough to watch, but that's sort of the point. You're not supposed to be comfortable with what these "heroes" are doing, you're just supposed to understand it.

Ancient of Days on :

I loved the movie, but I don't think I'd recommend it to anyone - if you're inclined to see it, you'll probably enjoy it. If you're not inclined to see it, you're not going to be able to blame me. :)

I agree with nearly everything "That Guy" said, with a few additions:

The scene where Rorschach finally really *becomes* Rorschach was way more bloody in the movie, but more dark and ultimately more satisfying in the book. The buckets of blood didn't make me feel like that guy actually suffered, and it just made Rorschach look like an animal.

Moving the Spectre/Nite Owl sex scene into Archie (and subsequently earlier in the story) is, I think, *WHY* it has that creepy "animals in the jungle going at it" feel to it. In the book, they're doing it after they've discovered Veidt's plan, and their inability to actually *do* anything about it. Instead of a "celebration of our power", it's a symbol of their futility.

Overall, I would say the violence mostly matched the book, but the nudity was far more exaggerated in the movie, for the obvious reasons.

The Mad Giggler on :

I think AoD is incorrect about the Archie scene (it was a metaphor for how being a superhero made Dan feel powerful, which is why he had trouble on the couch.)

I guess I'll have to thumb through the comic again. I must have filtered out the violence because I don't remember it being that bad. And I suspect that static cartoon blood doesn't bother me nearly as much as a pool of blood flowing out from under a men's room door. Ick! At least we didn't have to watch what happened in there.

Both of you seem to agree that the movie was more explicit than the book overall though.

Jeff on :

I don't know that the movie was any more explicit than the book, actually. There were times when they actually toned things down, like Rorschach walking in on his mother when she's entertaining a client. That was more graphic in the novel.

I think film just naturally has a more memorable impact on our senses, which probably makes it an overall more dangerous medium. Still, if your mind is buzzing and putting things in motion when you're looking at the comic, it's quite brutal and the sex is just as graphic.

I don't see many R-rated films, but this one really wasn't that much more graphic than what's been typical lately. Stuff like Saw or Hostel put Watchmen to shame in regards to blood, violence, sex, and language.

I do wish that Walter's transformation to Rorschach had been done in the same manner, but if you think about it the film took a more humane route. Yeah, it was disgusting and brutal, but that guy was out of it much quicker than being left to suffer in a fire. It's twisted that I even contemplated that, I think. Stupid movie/book... ;)

Radar on :

MG, thanks for doing this. I am glad to read your opinion.

To answer your opening question, I didn't care for either the violence/nudity or the bleak/sad world with the apparent inability to dig ones self out. As both you and AoD seemed to indicate, Alan Moore really believes this about society. If that is really his view on life, I pity him.

Also, didn't you tell me that you hated 1984? I know I hate that book. The idea that one should just give in to futility in the face of overwhelming odds and completely ignore their beliefs troubles me greatly. I have hope in being able to change the world around me. And it doesn't take a superhero or God to do it. Everyday people like you and I can do it.

As for the movie, though I have not seen it, cinematically it looks absolutely brilliant. But there is no way that there could ever be enough amazing cinematography, or story-telling, to make me want to choke down that much raw animalism. As you summarized, and I shall state, I don't need those images in *my* head. I've got enough, thank you.

The Mad Giggler on :

I think maybe I've not been entirely clear about the bleak world thing. The point of stories like 1984 and Watchmen is to wake people up. To get people changing the world around them, as you suggested. From what I understand, Moore believes in neither superheroes or gods, and his fear is that people will replace superheroes/gods with GOVERNMENT. Watchmen is a cry for people to stand up and take back responsibility from "big brother." Stop letting other people run your life. Prevent assured mutual destruction by getting out in your community and fostering communication with different people. The people in Watchmen are HORRIBLE. They're supposed to be. They're what WE could become.

I said that I was glad for the promises of divine intervention because I don't believe people are listening to the message of Watchmen. I believe that they are fulfilling it and our society is starting to seem more and more similar. That's not to say I don't want to do my part. Certainly, like you, I want to change the world around me. I want to be a better person and to do my best to be an example of a disciple of Christ, so that others around me can feel that same light. And to me, that is the lesson of Watchmen. Don't be a Rorschach. Don't be a Nite Owl. Don't be any of the people in Watchmen. BE BETTER!

Radar on :

I don't so much take umbrage anymore with the "moral" of the story as you and AoD have described it to me. I take exception to the idea that in order to teach that principle, or whatever you want to call it, that you have to use such violent images, language, etc.

The Mad Giggler on :

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/us/politics/10devaney.html?_r=1&th&emc=th#

Who watches the watchman?

Colin on :

I admire Watchmen from a structure/storytelling point of view, and to a limited degree as a deconstruction of comic book cliches. But my issues (Ha! Get it? We’re talking about a comic book movie!) are that first: I don’t think superheroes function as a very useful metaphor for anything that really matters in the real world, and so for me, Watchmen comments on comic books, and maybe on those who read and create them, but not much else of note. It’s relevant unto itself. Doesn’t mean I don’t think parallels can be made. Just means I think those parallels are usually pretty weak.

Second: I think the sex, violence and revenge is juvenile. I read a review of the film that expresses these feelings much better than I can. Here are some quotes from it:

“The problem is that Snyder, following Moore, is so insanely aroused by the look of vengeance, and by the stylized application of physical power, that the film ends up twice as fascistic as the forces it wishes to lampoon.”

“Amid these pompous grabs at horror, neither author nor director has much grasp of what genuine, unhyped suffering might be like, or what pity should attend it; they are too busy fussing over the fate of the human race—a sure sign of metaphysical vulgarity—to be bothered with lesser plights.”

Anyway, I have no problem with people loving it. I think it’s a helluva comic book. I just hate when people talk about it like it is something that can hold a candle to real literary classics that actually help millions to better understand the human condition, like say, Catcher in the Rye or, no offense, 1984. You don’t get the sense that George Orwell was giggling with delight as he wrote about the rat cage being brought to Winston’s face, but I sure get that impression when I read about Rorsarch hacking up the pedophile. Of course if it was Moore writing 1984, Winston would have been the one on the other end of the rat cage.

I enjoyed your blog post.

The Mad Giggler on :

I’ve never given much thought to Moore giggling at his ultra-violent, overly sexualized characters, but of his books, I’ve only ever read Watchmen. I think that the violence and sex do get in the way, but since 1984 is pretty much science fiction, I don’t see it as too much of a stretch to say Watchmen is comparable – it certainly has a similar tone (i.e. the world is really messed up). I’d need to re-read 1984 to really give a fair comparison, obviously 1984’s characters are more real because the watchmen are meant to be caricatures. Maybe after a re-read I’d agree that Watchmen doesn’t hold a candle. I never really cared for Catcher in the Rye. Maybe I just didn’t get it? I read it and was left wondering what the big deal was, not sure what that says about me.

Add Comment

Name

Homepage

Comment

In reply to

E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA