Watchmen? What is it about?

[scipioafricanus]

I have a basic knowledge of comic books, but I have never been interested in the more diverse comic worlds. The movie has been an interest to me since seeing "300", and learning that this was Zack Synder's next work.

From what I understand, the origin is a response to Reagan/80's America were superheroes become disillusioned with society. Something I would normally pass up, or just ignore (case in point, "They Live" by John Carpenter; so many funny lines in the movie) .

So a little help from anyone with knowledge...

SA

[scipioafricanus]

I got most of the bad juju about the movie from here:

http://www.redstate.com/warner_todd_hus ... -watchmen/

and a Jonah Goldberg article here:

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jgold ... -watchmen/

SA

[The Quiet Man]

I read the comic books (graphic novels) back when they first came out. A guy on my ship turned me on to them...when you're at sea you will read just about anything! Well, I was duly impressed then, and I revisited the story about 6 months ago when I heard that a movie was on the way...I still enjoy the story. It's a good entertaining story that gives the whole superhero thing a new and interesting twist. And while it is true that the author might have written it as an indictment on the Reagan administration, or conservatism, or hatred of America, I didn't read it that way and in so doing I am sure I let the author down. I don't care. I read the whole thing as a comic book...which is exactly what it is...I did not look for or give it any deep philosophical meaning. I still don't. I enjoy the book and I hope the movie turns out good...I look forward to seeing it.

At the end of the day sometimes a comic book is just a comic book.

[Kommander]

It's a deconstruction of modern superheros. It presents them as they would be if they really existed. There is only one guy with true "superpowers" and he...um...has problems. The political commentary is largely restricted to saying that having the US and Russia nuke each other would be bad. The rest of the complaints by both sites are well, asspulls. In fact there are blatant falsehoods in the very first paragraph the Red State article. I seriously doubt that they have even read the book.

As an aside it looks like that fellow over at Red State didn't like The Dark Knight either. What the hell do these guys want in a superhero movie, 1950's Superman? I also fund it amusing that these guys are piling on Synder for being anti American or something when his last move was about a desperate last stand of 300 westerners against a shitload of Persians.

Now it is important to note that I have only been talking about the comic at this point. I have no clue what the movie is going to look like. If Synder is as faithful to The Watchmen as he was to 300 there should be no problem. But if he does to The Watchmen what the Wachowski did to V for Vendetta there will be a fucking riot and I will personally find Synder and put his head on a pike.

[MelodyByrne]

According to Wil Wheaton the movie is faithful to the graphic novel.

Now, listen, I know that we live in a world where we've endured Ang Lee's The Hulk, Spiderman 3, both Fantastic Four movies, and Indiana Jones Gets Raped Repeatedly While We Are Forced To Watch In Horror, so I think it would be really strange if we weren't worried and apprehensive about something that already means so much to us, but I hope this will calm your nerves until the movie is released: Watchmen is faithful to the book. It respects the book. I swear by the beard of Zeus, it feels like the book. Yes, there are some cuts, but they serve the release and don't disrupt or betray the narrative at all. Yes, they made a change to something that's a pretty big deal in the book, but it doesn't matter; what they did instead accomplishes exactly the same thing, and it does it perfectly. There is some of the Zack Snyder signature slow motion, and though it's a little heavy in the very first scene (which worried me) it isn't overdone throughout the movie at all, and I found it to be pretty cool and entertaining.

[Jered]

According to Wil Wheaton the movie is faithful to the graphic novel.

Now, listen, I know that we live in a world where we've endured Ang Lee's The Hulk, Spiderman 3, both Fantastic Four movies, and Indiana Jones Gets Raped Repeatedly While We Are Forced To Watch In Horror, so I think it would be really strange if we weren't worried and apprehensive about something that already means so much to us, but I hope this will calm your nerves until the movie is released: Watchmen is faithful to the book. It respects the book. I swear by the beard of Zeus, it feels like the book. Yes, there are some cuts, but they serve the release and don't disrupt or betray the narrative at all. Yes, they made a change to something that's a pretty big deal in the book, but it doesn't matter; what they did instead accomplishes exactly the same thing, and it does it perfectly. There is some of the Zack Snyder signature slow motion, and though it's a little heavy in the very first scene (which worried me) it isn't overdone throughout the movie at all, and I found it to be pretty cool and entertaining.

We also had to live through Wesley Crusher, thanks to him.

[mekender]

and dammit, i liked Wesley Crusher... i spent many nights imagining that i was the one kissing on Ashley Judd... course that was before she was a frakking douchebag...

[mekender]

ive been watching TNG over the last few weeks... i just finished the first parts of season 5 that had Judd in them... and damn she was hot in that outfit.

[Jericho941]

Some people, when sensing something that may conflict with their personal ideology, seem to have an instinctive reaction to project all the demons of any opposing ideology on that something. The Red State article comes off as such a response.

It's not a bad series. I'm not gonna waste time debating the subjective gripes of the column (why he wasted time whining about manga style is beyond me; most contemporary Western stuff still bears little resemblance to anime) or the inaccuracies, but I'll mention one thing:

One wishes that writer, Moore, could have used his considerable talents to produce uplift as opposed to depression, to reach for the sublime instead of the prosaic, to inspire by taking the high road instead of the low.

When it comes to works like these and V for Vendetta, "uplifting" is just not what Moore does. I remember reading his introduction to V for Vendetta where he tells a story about stopping at a pub for dinner and noticing the reaction to bad news on the television by the owner's wife*, who complained about it and changed the channel to a "cheeky, cheery show about prisoners in a camp." Basically, the gist of it was that a lot of people were determined to turn a blind eye to the disturbing things going on in the world and would rather focus on "cheeky, cheery" things, and that V for Vendetta was not for those people.

Same goes for Watchmen, really. So far the best response to that op-ed piece has been from "Heinlein," so I'd recommend ctrl-f'ing for that handle.


*This is all going by memory as I didn't bring my copy with me when I shipped out.

[Scott Free]

Report this post Reply with quote
and dammit, i liked Wesley Crusher... i spent many nights imagining that i was the one kissing on Ashley Judd... course that was before she was a frakking douchebag...

Actually, Mr. Wheaton is quite the liberal douchebag (redundancy alert!) based upon an interview that I saw of his on the G4 network a few years ago.