Author Topic: Re-evaluating Watchmen (2009)  (Read 3762 times)

FerriswheelBueller

  • CaB rear of the year 2020
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Take it easy, but take it.
    • I am antsy for baseball in the off-season.
Re: Re-evaluating Watchmen (2009)
« Reply #30 on: March 26, 2021, 06:28:28 PM »
I liked the film and the comic book graphic novel.

Though I haven’t watched the last hour of the film yet, so maybe it’s shit.

Re: Re-evaluating Watchmen (2009)
« Reply #31 on: March 26, 2021, 06:32:55 PM »
Thought it was bad and didn’t like the tv show either, one of those things with endless cliffhangers and mysteries. I just couldn’t be arsed to watch it all. The film is not terrible i suppose.

The movie was ‘slavishly copying scenes from the comic’ alright, but didn’t understand the tone or the point of it whatsoever. Adding in fight scenes all over the place was dumb. He seemed to insist on making all the characters ‘cool’ and good at fighting.

MojoJojo

  • Member
  • **
  • Between a cow college and a MetaLab.
Re: Re-evaluating Watchmen (2009)
« Reply #32 on: March 27, 2021, 02:06:43 PM »
and the only additional flourish added is a tonally wrong and utterly embarrasing sex scene.
? Unless I.m forgetting one the only sex scene is the flamethrower one which is a shot for shot copy of the comic. Although yeah probably should have cut it.

It's hard to figure out where it goes wrong. Like that sex scene, the whole sequence is pretty faithful, but somehow misses the joke that Dan is a sad middle aged man who can only get it up if he dresses as an owl.

The comic mocked the superheroes, who were all shown to be either sad or monsters (or both), but the film just glorifies them.

(Laurie jupiter is somewhat problematic in the comic. She doesn't have much agency of her own and seems to exist mainly for Dan and Dr Manhattan to have someone to talk to}



Shameless Custard

  • PAUSE FOR THE JET
    • LastFM
Re: Re-evaluating Watchmen (2009)
« Reply #33 on: March 27, 2021, 02:23:00 PM »
I know a lot of people don't consider Before Watchmen to be canon, but Laurie Jupiter's was quite good. Focuses on her relationship with her mother, what leads her to take up the mantle, etc. Good stuff

Mister Six

  • Golden Member
  • *****
  • Ridiculously teacakes
Re: Re-evaluating Watchmen (2009)
« Reply #34 on: March 27, 2021, 07:32:27 PM »
D-Lind's involvement almost put me off. But it's good so far. On ep4.

Why? I'm assuming (hoping) you haven't seen The Leftovers, because that's a fucking masterpiece of weird TV.

Mister Six

  • Golden Member
  • *****
  • Ridiculously teacakes
Re: Re-evaluating Watchmen (2009)
« Reply #35 on: March 27, 2021, 07:34:48 PM »
(Laurie jupiter is somewhat problematic in the comic. She doesn't have much agency of her own and seems to exist mainly for Dan and Dr Manhattan to have someone to talk to}

Sort of works as a meta-critique of female comic book characters though.

Kelvin

  • The best bits of a pantomime horse
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • With skin the colour of a freshly peeled apple
Re: Re-evaluating Watchmen (2009)
« Reply #36 on: March 27, 2021, 07:43:47 PM »
Just want to be the tosser that points out that The Question in the animated Justice League series is fucking ace:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCHPfS69JwQ

Re: Re-evaluating Watchmen (2009)
« Reply #37 on: March 27, 2021, 08:39:07 PM »
Just want to be the tosser that points out that The Question in the animated Justice League series is fucking ace:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCHPfS69JwQ
Indeed, yer man doing the voice is great and I liked how they wrote him as someone who might be mental, but also might be a sharper investigator than even Batman.

Bit surprised they never used him in the Arrow/Flash TV shows. I vaguely remember mention in one of them being made of Hub City some years back.

Mister Six

  • Golden Member
  • *****
  • Ridiculously teacakes
Re: Re-evaluating Watchmen (2009)
« Reply #38 on: March 28, 2021, 04:15:55 AM »
Indeed, yer man doing the voice is great

Geoffrey Combs, aka Herbert West in Reanimator and the lunatic FBI agent in The Frighteners. He's brilliant in everything I've seen him in.

This is the best JLU Question moment, I reckon: https://youtu.be/n_gMWnWb1m0

EDIT: Ah, it's actually in the longer clip above. Still ace though.

MojoJojo

  • Member
  • **
  • Between a cow college and a MetaLab.
Re: Re-evaluating Watchmen (2009)
« Reply #39 on: March 28, 2021, 12:18:27 PM »
Sort of works as a meta-critique of female comic book characters though.

Hmmm, maybe, but I think that's a bit of stretch. And looking at Moore's other stuff he's really not great with women. He often has young women sleeping with much older men, and I don't think he's ever portrayed the reverse. Even Halo Jones' big lover was much older. And Promethea pushed it to an extreme.

Re: Re-evaluating Watchmen (2009)
« Reply #40 on: March 28, 2021, 12:38:22 PM »
Hmmm, maybe, but I think that's a bit of stretch. And looking at Moore's other stuff he's really not great with women. He often has young women sleeping with much older men, and I don't think he's ever portrayed the reverse. Even Halo Jones' big lover was much older. And Promethea pushed it to an extreme.

Isn't that just a reflection of society? Women go with much older men quite often, not so much the opposite.

chveik

  • OPEN THE PUBS BOYS
Re: Re-evaluating Watchmen (2009)
« Reply #41 on: March 28, 2021, 01:09:37 PM »
in Neonomicon there are quite a few pages dedicated to the rape of a women by a lovecraftian monster. Moore is a weirdo

Dr Rock

  • The BEST of luck!
Re: Re-evaluating Watchmen (2009)
« Reply #42 on: March 28, 2021, 01:12:54 PM »
A rape in an Alan Moore story? Well I never.

Re: Re-evaluating Watchmen (2009)
« Reply #43 on: March 28, 2021, 01:22:28 PM »
in Neonomicon there are quite a few pages dedicated to the rape of a women by a lovecraftian monster. Moore is a weirdo

Sounds like a lot of the anime I watched as a kid :-/

bgmnts

  • Depressed to the point of poisonous toxicity.
Re: Re-evaluating Watchmen (2009)
« Reply #44 on: March 28, 2021, 01:45:01 PM »
Hmmm, maybe, but I think that's a bit of stretch. And looking at Moore's other stuff he's really not great with women. He often has young women sleeping with much older men, and I don't think he's ever portrayed the reverse. Even Halo Jones' big lover was much older. And Promethea pushed it to an extreme.

Isn't Lost Girls meant to be quite good?

FerriswheelBueller

  • CaB rear of the year 2020
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Take it easy, but take it.
    • I am antsy for baseball in the off-season.
Re: Re-evaluating Watchmen (2009)
« Reply #45 on: March 28, 2021, 02:27:30 PM »
Isn't Lost Girls meant to be quite good?

His run of Swamp Thing is unironically my favourite comic series ever. Clever, subversive, and terrific art to boot.

Re: Re-evaluating Watchmen (2009)
« Reply #46 on: March 28, 2021, 03:51:46 PM »
(Laurie jupiter is somewhat problematic in the comic. She doesn't have much agency of her own and seems to exist mainly for Dan and Dr Manhattan to have someone to talk to}

I know a lot of people don't consider Before Watchmen to be canon, but Laurie Jupiter's was quite good. Focuses on her relationship with her mother, what leads her to take up the mantle, etc. Good stuff

She's been kicking considerable ass in the TV series so far, for what it's worth.

Why? I'm assuming (hoping) you haven't seen The Leftovers, because that's a fucking masterpiece of weird TV.

I have not seen that! Never heard of it. Will have a look. Thanks. As to why he tends to put me off (though I am reassessing now), he's part of that Lost/JJ crowd coming out with things like Cowboys & Aliens, Prometheus, Star Trek Into Darkness, World War Z, all of which can get in the bin none of which are my bag. I know those examples are all different to each other, but what they have in common (and what I don't like about them) is that they heavily lean on old ideas, title recognition, electrified/pimped-out versions of things that were fine to begin with. To me they just look like creative cowardice, cynical billion-making, unimaginative rehashing, more cross-eyed worship of the big-and-loud.

I will give The Leftovers some time though. I like his Watchmen so far and I do respect your judgement.

Re: Re-evaluating Watchmen (2009)
« Reply #47 on: March 28, 2021, 03:52:53 PM »
His run of Swamp Thing is unironically my favourite comic series ever. Clever, subversive, and terrific art to boot.

Yeah, dogg. Really good.

mothman

  • I don't know why
Re: Re-evaluating Watchmen (2009)
« Reply #48 on: March 28, 2021, 04:33:35 PM »
Lindelof being viewed solely through a prism of his past association with the JJ crowd and their ouevre is a common misapprehension (guilty). Especially as The Leftovers and the Watchmen limited series are both superb. I’m not sure what he’s up to next but the crushing weight of expectations may come into play.

Re: Re-evaluating Watchmen (2009)
« Reply #49 on: March 28, 2021, 04:53:56 PM »
She's been kicking considerable ass in the TV series so far, for what it's worth.

I have not seen that! Never heard of it. Will have a look. Thanks. As to why he tends to put me off (though I am reassessing now), he's part of that Lost/JJ crowd coming out with things like Cowboys & Aliens, Prometheus, Star Trek Into Darkness, World War Z, all of which can get in the bin none of which are my bag. I know those examples are all different to each other, but what they have in common (and what I don't like about them) is that they heavily lean on old ideas, title recognition, electrified/pimped-out versions of things that were fine to begin with. To me they just look like creative cowardice, cynical billion-making, unimaginative rehashing, more cross-eyed worship of the big-and-loud.

I will give The Leftovers some time though. I like his Watchmen so far and I do respect your judgement.

The Leftovers gets better as it goes on too. I almost binned it off in the first season, but the third season is up there with the all time greatest seasons of anything ever. The final episode, in particular, is beautiful.

I'm with you in hating all the other stuff you've mentioned, but my impression is more that he'll take a job and write something for the money, and is willing to do as he's ordered, but that with a bit of freedom he's a genuinely good writer with good ideas.

Re: Re-evaluating Watchmen (2009)
« Reply #50 on: March 28, 2021, 05:15:41 PM »
Hmmm, maybe, but I think that's a bit of stretch. And looking at Moore's other stuff he's really not great with women. He often has young women sleeping with much older men, and I don't think he's ever portrayed the reverse. Even Halo Jones' big lover was much older. And Promethea pushed it to an extreme.

Yeah I am a big fan of Moore - at least the 80s stuff - but as Dr Rock says pretty much every comic of his has some kind of rape and / or abuse of women. Even some of the DC Universe stuff implies rape. Not something I really picked up on as a teenager but it does read dodgy as an adult.

Shameless Custard

  • PAUSE FOR THE JET
    • LastFM
Re: Re-evaluating Watchmen (2009)
« Reply #51 on: March 28, 2021, 06:53:05 PM »
But from what I've read (Watchmen, From Hell, Lost Girls, V For Vendetta, his DC bits n bobs, other things I'm forgetting) Moore presents it in a way where he's framing the men as the cunts/evildoers, who are committing atrocities to females

I haven't read all of his work, mind, so maybe there is some dodgy bits in places. But I've always seen it (or read it, rather) that Moore dislikes everyone equally!

bgmnts

  • Depressed to the point of poisonous toxicity.
Re: Re-evaluating Watchmen (2009)
« Reply #52 on: March 28, 2021, 07:36:02 PM »
Yeah I've never ever read it that Moore has a thing about rape at all.

Re: Re-evaluating Watchmen (2009)
« Reply #53 on: March 28, 2021, 08:15:13 PM »
Well yeah, I'm not saying he's pro-rape. He's not as bad as someone like Mark Millar, who sticks it in every story just for shock value, but there's a lot more of it in his work than is really necessary if you ask me.

Re: Re-evaluating Watchmen (2009)
« Reply #54 on: March 28, 2021, 09:29:12 PM »
Miracleman (one of my favourite Moore things) has a rape too. I'd never noticed how often such scenes were included in his work till it was pointed out.

In fact, two in Miracleman, one male on female, t'other male on male.

Re: Re-evaluating Watchmen (2009)
« Reply #55 on: March 28, 2021, 10:19:04 PM »
Been a while since I read it, but isn’t the League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen full of it? Dim, possibly false, memories of the invisible man raping a woman and then in turn getting raped by Mr Hyde.

chveik

  • OPEN THE PUBS BOYS
Re: Re-evaluating Watchmen (2009)
« Reply #56 on: March 28, 2021, 10:21:12 PM »
there's a fucked up one (well even more horrible that usual) in Providence with some sort of body inversion.

Shameless Custard

  • PAUSE FOR THE JET
    • LastFM
Re: Re-evaluating Watchmen (2009)
« Reply #57 on: March 28, 2021, 11:49:33 PM »
Maybe Moore has had rape or sexual assault affect his own life, or the life of someone he loves, and he deals with it through his work?

I'd never even noticed that it was a recurring thing in his work until this thread. It is interesting though. Guess we'll never know

Re: Re-evaluating Watchmen (2009)
« Reply #58 on: March 29, 2021, 12:23:51 AM »
As mentioned above, Snyder is a dense Randian frat boy who’s complete misunderstanding of Watchmen was transferred perfectly to the screen.  He misses the point because his politics is what was being skewered, as much as the entire notion of comicbook vigilantes.  Rorschach is an ugly, smelly psychopath who’s fucked-up objectivist notions of morality mean that he cannot accept any form of compromise.  He isn’t a hero; he isn’t cool.  He’s a right wing psycho.  If he was real, he’d have been storming Congress in January.  Nite Owl II is a schlubby overweight man who’s sad sack existence means that he can only be himself when donning his costume - right up to suffering erectile dysfunction without it.  He isn’t a ripped superhero.  Silk Spectre II hates being a hereditary costumed crime fighter - she smokes, moans, and generally wants little to do with that whole world.  She isn’t a kick-ass sexy crime fighter.  Dr Manhattan has become so removed from his previous life that he views human beings as no more interesting than any other collection of atoms.  He isn’t a whiny bore.  Adrian Veidt isn’t a weird, weasily little man - he’s an ubermensch who loves being an ubermensch, and poses a threat for that reason.  Snyder fundamentally misunderstands every comic book he’s adapted.  ‘Batman could be raped in one of my movies’.  Probably Zack, you edgy bastard.

The thing is, even though Snyder’s film captures absolutely none of the essence of the comics (whenever people say it is ‘accurate’, I honestly wonder if we read the same comic), that still doesn’t mean that a decent film couldn’t be made from it.  That it is a three hour snooze fest is on him. 

Mister Six

  • Golden Member
  • *****
  • Ridiculously teacakes
Re: Re-evaluating Watchmen (2009)
« Reply #59 on: March 29, 2021, 03:15:19 AM »
Moore is definitely dodgy in terms of using sexual violence all the fucking time, but he's also written a bunch of great female characters (Top 10 has loads of 'em, and they're all memorable and interesting, although yeah it does climax with a big burly man hero killing an evil burly woman villain so....).

I will give The Leftovers some time though. I like his Watchmen so far and I do respect your judgement.

Ignore his movie stuff for the most part - TV is where he can detach from the JJ Abrams BIG BLOCKBUSTER SPECTACLE model and get weird. Leftovers is amazing, but the first season is (by Lindelof's own admission) too portentous and overbearing and ooh so angsty, so meaningful. Seasons two and three lean more heavily into the weirder and funnier sides of the show and are much better for it.

Tags: