Jump to content
D6 Online 3.0
Sign in to follow this  
The Game Guy

Who Watches Who Walks Out of "Watchmen"?

Recommended Posts

I think it most likely just the issue of people assuming that superhero movies are simplistic trash written by idiots, which is the way most superhero movies end up presenting the story.

Once they realized that the film was actually written for those with an IQ HIGHER than 80, they bolted in confusion and panic.

 

This was NOT a problem at the midnight movie.

Everyone there had a "Smiley" T-shirt and copies of the graphic novel, and EVERYONE truly seemed to love it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a single person (that I saw) walked out, but I guess since I was watchin in IMAX and you have to pay more for it, most people KNEW what they were getting into.

 

It's one thing to watch the big spring blockbuster and be unhappy. It's another thing entirely to watch the big bluster that is based on VERY popular and award winning graphic novel that is well touted as being very dark and politically driven, written by a neo-anarchist that almost NEVER has anything nice to say about the leaders of society.

 

How hard is it to learn something about a movie before you go and see it? Am I unusual in that I almost ALWAYS research a movie before I see it and, if that movie is one that is anticipated a great deal before hand, I do A LOT of research.

 

Outside of a few minor changes, some of which are actually BETTER done in the movie than graphic novel (I'm looking at you quantum energy blast versus stupid rampaging monster attack), the movie was almost slavishly accurate to the movie. Ok, so Dr. Manhatten was naked through much of the movie. In all honesty that makes TOTAL sense. Why would Dr. Manhattan, who is loosing all ability to identify with humanity, care for social conventions such as clothing? He certainly doesn't need to protect himself from the cold. It's wonderful to show the irony of a hero that is so weak and insecure that he cannot get it up, unless having kicked ass as a masked hero, or at least be thinking about it.

 

People cannot see how Dr. Manhattan, being so smart, that he could be manipulated by Veidt into supporting his plan. Not understand? Manhattan can do simple math and that math is very clear. Either a few million people die and the world rallys in support of a common enemy, or the world is almost totally destroyed by nuclear genocide. Like it or not, Veidts plan was the RIGHT plan. What would they suggest he do, kill Veidt, reveal the truth of what happened and, peace randomly breaks out and everyone is happy? Roll credits? Watchmen attempts to be far more realistic than that and killing Veidt would not have solved the obvious problem that the U.S. and USSR were about to blow each other to hell. I think even Rorschach knew that Veidts plan was the "correct" plan, but he's so black and white that he cannot accept "correct," but only "right." He is a moral dogmatic and for him, moral purity is more important than even human life.

 

I hate people who don't understand complex plots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't mention some of these things in the first Watchmen thread because it's not a big deal to me, but I will respond here to what I read on that page. Maybe I'll say what some others are thinking but haven't said.

 

The only thing that slightly bothered me personally about the film was the multiple gratuitous appearances of Dr. Manahatten's blue gentials. I'm not particularly homophobic or anything, but I just happen to be heterosexual so I don't need to see that. Of course, I don't mind gratuitous female nudity as much. I'm not arguing what is right or wrong for the movie, and I'm not imposing a double standard. I'm just responding with my personal response as an individual male hetero movie goer. (Please let the record show I feel there is nothing wrong with any particular gender or sexual preference.)

 

I happen to feel the male genitals were uneccesary - some scenes show him with clothes or shorts on. For the others, if the movie makers were attempting to convey the aspect of his character that he was beyond human concerns for needing to be clothed, they could have just been a little more creative with the camera angles and suggested he was nude without showing full frontal male nudity. But like I said, it's not a big deal anyway.

 

As for the rest of the movie, yes, it was extremely violent and gory. A very important part of message of the movie. I would like to state that this is NOT really a superhero movie. All but one of the characters protrayed in the whole movie actually has super-powers, and that one (genitals-bearing) character has god-like powers, far above the scale of even Superman. And the Watchmen are not heroes in the traditional sense. They are masked vigilantes that are not above killing subdued, surrendered criminals in anger with butcher knives, and even explode fleeing Vietnamese to help the US win the Vietnam War. And one of the Watchmen even enjoys arbitrarily killing innocent civilians, and attempts to rape someone. And there's one more warning I'd like to give but it would give away too much about the mystery and plot of the movie's climax.

 

As far the Dad who took his young sons, IMO he's an idiot for not doing the research on the movie first. PG and PG-13 are the ratings that tell you to use parental guidnance. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to assume that if the movie has the rating ABOVE the parental guidance ratings, maybe you should still use parental guidance, even if you are with your kids. Fathers, don't go to a movie blind and take your kids because (1) they may have already seen too much by the time you make a decision that they shouldn't be watching, and (2) you wasted your money and time. If you wanna watch it, either see it without your young kids or wait for video rental and watch it after the kids go to bed. And really, to all the people that walked out - they should have done a little checking before hand. Pay attention to the rating and what type of content mandates that rating for this movie.

 

This is very dark twist on the so-called "superhero film", and it is rated R for a good reason. My theater even had a warning sign up at the ticket booth stating that this is not your typical superhero movie, describing some of the content. After seeing the movie, I think it was a wise and beneficial warning. We're not talking about Spider-man or even Batman here.

 

Rated R for strong graphic violence, sexuality, nudity and language.

What part of that is hard to understand? If any of this content sounds too much for any of you to handle, then I recommend you do not try watch this movie in the first place. Please do not go, and then walk out or ask for your money back. If you read all this and still decide to go, then at least try to get your money's worth and sit through the whole movie. Be an adult. But if it still makes you sick, then get up and go home without complaint.

 

I feel that anyone asking for your money back for content concerns is not right, because the theater already sold your seat and shouldn't have to give you your money back because you decided to go to a movie anyway after being warned. I feel that your decision to pay for your ticket should mean that there are no refunds unless there is a technical or human (other movie goers) issue that distracts you from the movie going experience. Someone near you is talking, has a baby, uses her phone, etc., yeah, I can maybe see asking for your money back. The screen goes black, or sound goes out - yeah, get a refund.

 

Otherwise, you have been warned. Enjoy the movie. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you look at what the author said,

 

"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.)"

 

I'll factor in 15 minutes for the setting to sink in, so lets say, an hour has passed, its not possible for this to happen, Dr. Manhattan went to Mars some hour and a half into the movie. Therefore, its not possible for this event to have occured.

 

As for "Laughing as they left the theatre", If they did this, and it wasn't a comedy they must be pretty low brow anyway... I've never seen anyone make that much noise trying to leave a theatre, they save it for the hallway outside.

 

Sounds like this guy spent too much time observing the people inside the theatre, and not the characters on the silver screen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps it's my fault for having an IQ above 90, but I thought the segues between "modern" day and the flashbacks were really quite clear. I can appreciate less action then one might expect from a "superhero" movie. I can appreciate being uncomfortable with how dark a depressing the story was (which is sort of the POINT, I'd have to say), but to not understand storytelling and scene transitions is mind boggling. If they had problems with this, I'm afraid Pulp Fiction must have made their ears bleed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps it's my fault for having an IQ above 90, but I thought the segues between "modern" day and the flashbacks were really quite clear. I can appreciate less action then one might expect from a "superhero" movie. I can appreciate being uncomfortable with how dark a depressing the story was (which is sort of the POINT, I'd have to say), but to not understand storytelling and scene transitions is mind boggling. If they had problems with this, I'm afraid Pulp Fiction must have made their ears bleed.

 

lol, yeah I bet Pulp Fiction had em scratchin their heads. I also had no difficulty understanding which scenes were present and flashbacks in The Watchmen, not even momentarily, not even once. I thought that was quite clear and well-designed.

 

And my stated slight dissapointment with with the amount of action in the movie was in no way driven about by any expectations I had based on whether it was a "superhero" movie or not. I'm just an action junkie and I say that about most movies, regardless of genre. I understood this movie's style of storytelling and I appreciate it for what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only thing that slightly bothered me personally about the film was the multiple gratuitous appearances of Dr. Manahatten's blue gentials. I'm not particularly homophobic or anything, but I just happen to be heterosexual so I don't need to see that. Of course, I don't mind gratuitous female nudity as much. I'm not arguing what is right or wrong for the movie, and I'm not imposing a double standard. I'm just responding with my personal response as an individual male hetero movie goer. (Please let the record show I feel there is nothing wrong with any particular gender or sexual preference.)

 

It's funny I have heard this complaint before and I have also heard this fact being made fun of.

 

I am surprised that no one really caught that and saw that that might be an issue prior to it being released.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's funny I have heard this complaint before and I have also heard this fact being made fun of.

 

I am surprised that no one really caught that and saw that that might be an issue prior to it being released.

 

Dr. Manhattan is repeatedly shown as naked in the GN. I for one appreciate that clothes provide no use to the Doc and thus are totally inconsequential as a human social convention. I also appreciate the act of showing him naked as a dig on American societies irrational taboos about the naked human body. I'd have been FAR more annoyed if they had clothed him just to pander to our hang-ups.

 

It's a penis. So what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I thought it was a Superhero movie and didnt do the research myself, I expected copious violence, amusing quips, and massive collateral damage

 

The part that made me really like the movie though was when the gang beset the two incognito superheroes in the alley and were promptly dismantled. How cool, wandering monster checks in a movie

 

And I thought the various costumes were pretty neat and the sets, it had a very neat flavor to it, and the fight at the beginning was very good, didnt get all super crazy camera jumping like in the first Batman movie, had high collateral damage and not quite perfect moves that helped give it a super feel

 

I didnt like the big blue genitals thing, so what if hes divorced from humanity, we dont need to see it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny how all the complaints are about seeing him naked, but have no problem seeing Silk Spectre II naked... Guess you guys shower in the dark, too. heheh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess since I've been involved in fine arts for years and have spent many, many hours studying nudes for figure drawing and painting, male and female alike, I've had to deal with looking at male genitalia and it is not uncomfortable for me in the least. I'm strongly attracted to the human body as a fabulous form of art in its own right regardless of gender. Don't get me wrong, it's not a sexual matter any more than looking at the complexity of a rose is sexual.

 

I lament the the vestiges of America's puritanical origins in so many ways. The simple fact that we cannot divorce ourselves from the automatic correlation between nudity and sexuality, thus we are completely uncomfortable with nudity -- especially seeing other men, is truly sad.

 

I envy more liberal societies for so many reasons -- this being one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eric, I envy both Dr. Manhatten and you, for your complete freedom from human social conventions. Like I said, it wasn't a huge deal to me and didn't distract me from what the themes of the movie were. I consider it a minor point.

 

But since I am not quite as liberal as I wish I was, I still totally agree with Kal. I personally got the point they were trying to make by showing his penis, without the penis.

 

I didnt like the big blue genitals thing, so what if hes divorced from humanity, we dont need to see it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. Manhattan is repeatedly shown as naked in the GN. I for one appreciate that clothes provide no use to the Doc and thus are totally inconsequential as a human social convention. I also appreciate the act of showing him naked as a dig on American societies irrational taboos about the naked human body. I'd have been FAR more annoyed if they had clothed him just to pander to our hang-ups.

 

It's a penis. So what?

 

Oh I understand. As you know I haven't seen the movie so I am only saying what I have heard.

 

I guess that of thing (no pun intended) makes certain people uncomfortable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a note, I had never read the graphic novels, my entire knowledge of the Watchmen prior to seeing the movie was 'its about superheroes at least one of which is named Rorshach'

 

Once I have decided whether or not I want to see a movie I carefully try to avoid acquiring any further knowledge of it until after the fact so as to avoid polluting myself

 

So 'Watchmen = Superhero movie = want to see = try to avoid any further knowledge'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was at least as much of if not far more of a Superhero movie than the first of the recent two Batman movies (I still havent seen the second one)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was at least as much of if not far more of a Superhero movie than the first of the recent two Batman movies (I still havent seen the second one)

 

I cannot totally agree with you. It was much closer to a mixture between noir and a political drama with superhero trappings, rather than a true "superhero" book/film, which tends to be more of a morality play with a kung-fu grip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least one person with superpowers and those the result of a nuclear mishap, lots of people with costumes, super science (just how exactly does Archie fly?)

 

Consider the first of the two recent Batman movies. The Scarecrow _might_ have had superpowers, but, it seemed like was a combination of his freaky hood and chemicals (though Rorshach in Watchmen also had the freaky hood thing going that moved on its own). Batman trained with the ninja monk people, but did not seem to gain actual superpowers from doing so, and he had nifty widgets and such such as the armor, but armor that stops bullets is not exactly superpowers, we have that already

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(though Rorshach in Watchmen also had the freaky hood thing going that moved on its own).

Sadly, they neglect the origin of the mask.

It was invented by Doc Manhattan as a new clothing line.

One which failed.

Rorschach liked the way that the cloth did not mix to make gray.

Figured out how to cut a mask out of it with a hot scissors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if I remember correctly, in the graphic novel the dress using the fabric was being made for Kitty Genovese, who in the real world was assaulted and eventually murdered over the course of more than 30 minutes in NYC while a city block full of bystanders did nothing to help her...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitty_Genovese

 

Good motivation for Kovacs initial transition into Rorschach, I thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And if I remember correctly, in the graphic novel the dress using the fabric was being made for Kitty Genovese, who in the real world was assaulted and eventually murdered over the course of more than 30 minutes in NYC while a city block full of bystanders did nothing to help her...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitty_Genovese

 

Good motivation for Kovacs initial transition into Rorschach, I thought.

It was writing genius as far as I'm concerned.

AND, Kovacs only BELLIEVES that the woman was Kitty Genovese.

A woman came in with a general similar appearance.

THEN he hears about the fate of Kitty Genovese.

Maybe conflates the two in his mind?

The graphic novel itself insinuates that the two women might have merely resembled each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's fair to assume that everyone who walked out of Watchmen did it because they were too dim to understand it. I didn't like it much, though I didn't walk out (I've never walked out on a film yet - I even stayed to the end of Batman & Robin!). Although Watchmen had a well put-together plot adnwas pretty clever overall, I just couldn't get into it because I found most of the major characters in it utterly loathsome. Even an emotionless blue naked guy was more likeable to me than most of the Watchmen. :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...