Who Watches the Watchmen?

[Taikomochi 1,136]

Now I feel much more comfortable!

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Penises make your comfortable?

[Nick Parker 3,040]

I am confused here....

[Wojo 2,453]

Blume, that was black. It's gotta be blue.

(Just not black and blue, or it wouldn't be that big)

[Morlock 11]

Saw the film. My initial reaction was that it was mediocre, and that Snyder is terrible with actors. Oh, and that the music was a wasted opportunity at best, a horrible mish-mash that reveals it's director's ingorant filmmaking at worst. And several other things, big and small. But, upon reflection, I realized that I was so turned off by some of the minutia that I failed to pay attention to how the film actually dealt with the ideas presented by the source. I do think that that is a fault in the filmmaking...but I think I need to see it again to give it a fair chance. Which is a shame, since I had a great time forming and voicing my gut-reactions to the people I saw it with.

I will share the things I liked in this first viewing, though- the opening scene, the wonderfully witty and engaging main titles, Rorcharch, The Comedian (even if he does look and feel like Robert Downey Jr. without the mask, Mickey Rourke with it), the feel of the ending (though it's also lacking), the swinging bathroom door (even if it did waste an opportunity at easily being much better).

Also, I must say that that sex scene was one of the most horrendous things I've ever seen/heard.

I am really curious to see if I can come to it with an even somewhat open mind the second time. I've rarely been able to see past my initial negative reactions upon seeing a film again in the theater, always focusing on the stuff I can shoot down easily.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

What'd you think of the penis?

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Penises make your comfortable?

oh most definately.

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

Saw the film. My initial reaction was that it was mediocre, and that Snyder is terrible with actors. Oh, and that the music was a wasted opportunity at best, a horrible mish-mash that reveals it's director's ingorant filmmaking at worst. And several other things, big and small. But, upon reflection, I realized that I was so turned off by some of the minutia that I failed to pay attention to how the film actually dealt with the ideas presented by the source. I do think that that is a fault in the filmmaking...but I think I need to see it again to give it a fair chance. Which is a shame, since I had a great time forming and voicing my gut-reactions to the people I saw it with.

I will share the things I liked in this first viewing, though- the opening scene, the wonderfully witty and engaging main titles, Rorcharch, The Comedian (even if he does look and feel like Robert Downey Jr. without the mask, Mickey Rourke with it), the feel of the ending (though it's also lacking), the swinging bathroom door (even if it did waste an opportunity at easily being much better).

Also, I must say that that sex scene was one of the most horrendous things I've ever seen/heard.

I am really curious to see if I can come to it with an even somewhat open mind the second time. I've rarely been able to see past my initial negative reactions upon seeing a film again in the theater, always focusing on the stuff I can shoot down easily.

Malin Akerman undressed can only be a good thing.

[Delorean90 42]

1. Theoretical "you": The primary reason among men would just be that they're grossed out by seeing another guy's package (understandable, IMO).

Grow the hell up, says I to them.

A more modest/prudent female would not want to see the private parts (interesting that the primary and secondary sexual body parts are called that...) of a male that they are not married to (or at least not in a relationship with).

Seriously? Well, I'd tell them to grow the hell up, too.

Y'know, if people were saying, "I don't wanna have sex with my spouse because I'd see them naked," I'd agree with you (though I'd probably word it a bit more politely). If they were saying, "I don't wanna take a shower or go to the bathroom or change my clothes," yeah, there'd be a serious issue here.

Not wanting to see someone naked in a movie? Hmmm...not so much.

2. Literal "you": I personally don't believe that nudity is either necessary or appropriate in films--certainly not in this way. To be honest, I personally wouldn't be as bothered if it's not in a sexual context (which I understand it isn't) because I've got one, and not only do I see it every day, but the one in question happens to be glowing blue. Nonetheless, not only do I not really want to see it, but men aren't the only ones that will see it, and I believe nudity is best kept in the context of personal privacy, medical situations, and marital sexuality.

So you're just anti-film nudity in general? Well, so be it, but you ought to be able to easily avoid movies that have nudity, making this a completely moot argument in your own case.

What bothers me is the idea that nobody ought to see a naked body in a movie. I'm not saying you're saying that, but I've heard other people say it.

Okay, let's take the opposite tack for a moment: What is a good reason for someone to see a naked body in a movie? Not just general concepts like making an effect more impactful and visceral, but some kind of example is more what I'm looking for.

And from there, it's a short step to saying that nobody should see a naked body in real life unless certain conditions are met. It's all rather judgmental and meddlesome and troubling, and I won't have any part of it.

How so? I mean, we're not talking about laws that you be whipped for fornicating or anything. I think indecent exposure laws are a good idea, but in the privacy of your home, unless something malicious is going on, then we're talking about shoulds here, not I'm gonna lock you up because you saw your girlfriend naked.

Caveat: While I still don't agree with the inclusion of nudity, I can see the reasoning behind something like Schindler's List, where the point is to give a fuller portrayal of the horrors that occured.

So you're okay with it as long as you can feel some horror at seeing dongs and boobs? In that case, wouldn't it be permissible to show a graphic rape scene, to suitably impress how horrifying that particular crime is? Where do you draw that line?

I never said I agreed with it, only it made somewhat more sense than, say, just having a chick flash her stuff for humor/sex appeal/etc.--also, it wasn't just horror at a crime, but a major historical crime against humanity: the Holocaust. Nonetheless, I agree that even then you're getting into murky waters there. Which is why I wouldn't go with it. There is a certain point where the concept of something (rape, for instance) is horrific enough that we don't need to see it. Again, there are ways that aren't explicit but still deliver a real punch, and I think that's the best way to go.

For some reason the board isn't liking the post, so I'm using actual quotation marks here.

"The nudity in Watchmen is anything but gratuitous. Every instance of it is there for a specific reason, to (hopefully) nudge the audience toward thinking about specific ideas."

How so? Or would further elaboration go into spoiler material?

"'This shouldn't be a problem, though--true artistry often thrives under restrictions, because it forces you to be more creative.'

True artisty often does thrive under restrictions, yes, I'll agree with that 100%.

However, it would be a crime against humanity to enforce restrictions against all artists in all instances."

Hmm, not sure what you mean there. Are you speaking in terms of something like the Hayes Code, or are you going further than that? 'Cause there's...a lot of expert, powerful filmmaking that was made under the Hayes Code. Just sayin'.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Life is explicit. Get used to it. Deliberately not showing something for the sake of not showing it is as bad as showing it for the sake of showing it. Violence, nudity, sex, it all has a purpose in films, and should be used accordingly. Most of the time, it is used properly.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I've yet to see a movie where a sex scene actually improved the movie.

except porn.

[Delorean90 42]

Life is explicit. Get used to it. Deliberately not showing something for the sake of not showing it is as bad as showing it for the sake of showing it. Violence, nudity, sex, it all has a purpose in films, and should be used accordingly. Most of the time, it is used properly.

Uhh...I don't follow you there.

Define proper usage of those things. Violence to a point makes sense, because violence ties directly to conflict, which is inherent in drama. Sex...isn't. Every legitimate reason I can think of for it can be expressed in other, more tactful ways.

It is not that I don't understand that life is explicit, things happen, and sometimes we just end up seeing graphic things. Doctors have to see naked people and gore all the time, and I don't have a moral objection to that, because it's just something that has to be dealt with. But that's not the same thing as deliberately setting such images in front of yourself. Graphic gore and sex/nudity simply is not essential for good storytelling or moviemaking. Sorry, it just isn't.

I'm more than willing to hear what you guys find to be legitimate reasons for having those things.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

You said people shouldn't show it because it's graphic. That shouldn't be the reason. The reason should be is that it is irrelevant. You say violence and gore is something that certain people have to deal with. Well a lot of people have sex. In films like The Reader, sex is relevant to the story. In films like Snakes On A Plane, it isn't.

[Bryant Burnette 654]

I'm more than willing to hear what you guys find to be legitimate reasons for having those things.

Because artists ought to be able to express themselves without necessarily having to censor themselves. It's really not any more complicated than that.

What's your legitimate reason for wanting films to never go into this aspect of human existence?

Graphic gore and sex/nudity simply is not essential for good storytelling or moviemaking. Sorry, it just isn't.

Maybe. However, the ability to do so is essential to artistic freedom. I'm not saying that artists ought to use those tools, or that they have to in order for their art to be worthwile (what stupid things to say those would be). I am saying that if art is going to genuinely reflect the human condition, then sometimes it is going to have to do so unfettered. Otherwise, it grows stagnant, irrelevant, and uninteresting as a whole.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

Graphic gore and sex/nudity simply is not essential for good storytelling or moviemaking. Sorry, it just isn't.

Why isn't it? It just isn't is a great slogan for kindergarten, but I'm sure you're older than that right? So please explain why "it just isn't."

Scientific research shows that when you watch someone in a movie stand at the ledge of a 120 story building, areas of the viewers brain that would be active that are the same areas of a person who actually stands on the ledge of a tall building. By the same token, watching a couple have sex in a movie also activates similar areas of the brain that would be active during real sex.

So there is a reason for violence and sex. If used effectively it can form a stronger visceral connection between viewer and film. If you can disprove that, I will gladly bow to you and say sex and violence cannot enhance a movie. Seeing as you're from Kentucky (a conservative state if any), I'm going to go ahead and assume the biggest reason you're saying that is due to moral objections. Which I suppose would actually make a sex scene ineffective for you. You'd feel so uncomfortable it would pull you out of the movie and destroy your suspension of disbelief. And in that case, such movies are not made for you and you should avoid them.

I've yet to see a movie where a sex scene actually improved the movie

Basic Instinct. Amelie.

[Hitch 57]

Saw it last night. One of the most tedious movies I've ever seen. While the set decoration and graphics were top notch, I couldn't help but doze off in the quieter moments which happened quite a lot. Too much talking....very slim on the action....loved the prison sequence with the dwarf and his 2 henchmen. Overall, very disappointing 162 minutes of viewing. And whose bright idea was it to include the opening of Mozart's REQUIEM towards the end???? Didn't work!!!

**/*****

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I'm so glad I saw The Unborn on Tuesday night instead.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Graphic gore and sex/nudity simply is not essential for good storytelling or moviemaking. Sorry, it just isn't.

Why isn't it? It just isn't is a great slogan for kindergarten, but I'm sure you're older than that right? So please explain why "it just isn't."

Scientific research shows that when you watch someone in a movie stand at the ledge of a 120 story building, areas of the viewers brain that would be active that are the same areas of a person who actually stands on the ledge of a tall building. By the same token, watching a couple have sex in a movie also activates similar areas of the brain that would be active during real sex.

So there is a reason for violence and sex. If used effectively it can form a stronger visceral connection between viewer and film. If you can disprove that, I will gladly bow to you and say sex and violence cannot enhance a movie. Seeing as you're from Kentucky (a conservative state if any), I'm going to go ahead and assume the biggest reason you're saying that is due to moral objections. Which I suppose would actually make a sex scene ineffective for you. You'd feel so uncomfortable it would pull you out of the movie and destroy your suspension of disbelief. And in that case, such movies are not made for you and you should avoid them.

I've yet to see a movie where a sex scene actually improved the movie

Basic Instinct. Amelie.

Nope, don't agree at all. You're reasoning is Indy 4-ish.

Delorean is correct here IMHO.

There is an entire history of great film making that preceeds the era where sex and nudity became explicit.

A movie can be good with all the element you state, but they are not improving the picture, and can be far less explicit without harming the film.

[Taikomochi 1,136]

And whose bright idea was it to include the opening of Mozart's REQUIEM towards the end???? Didn't work!!!

I felt it worked strongly. Don't bitch about it. You think Bates could have done a better job?

[Bryant Burnette 654]

There is an entire history of great film making that preceeds the era where sex and nudity became explicit.

A movie can be good with all the element you state, but they are not improving the picture, and can be far less explicit without harming the film.

Well, of course there were great movies before, and of course movies can be great without being explicit ... they still get made that way. Nobody is arguing that that isn't the case.

What I'm arguing is that sometimes, explicitness is artistically valid, and therefore good.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

and I disagree, I think it reflects a lack of imagination and filmmaking style, often the director or screenwriter takes the easy way out.

[Wojo 2,453]

Are wanton violence and explicit sex used in The Watchmen as a legitimate plot device that function in addition to other good plot devices?

Or are they used as a crutch in place of good storytelling to spruce up a lackluster plot? I don't know.

There is a difference. I think if used correctly, the sex and violence can spice up good movies, but the movie has to be good for other reasons. Those devices don't turn bad movies into good movies. Take the violence and sex out of, say, The Godfather, and it's still a good movie. Watered down, but still good. The violence is required for the genre, but all the sex does is demonstrate what a horndog Sonny is. I'm not sure the scene with Apollonia was necessarily required to advance the story of Michael's first night with his wife, but it doesn't hurt the movie.

Take the violence and sex out of crappy torture porn movies made today, and what do you have left? Nothing.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

and I disagree, I think it reflects a lack of imagination and filmmaking style, often the director or screenwriter takes the easy way out.

I for one get very irritated with the constant innuendo about half of such movies you're speaking of present. Sometimes it's perfect, other times you can tell it is bowing to studio/historical pressure.

To me sex in a film can be just as effective as medieval depictions of it.

Nope, don't agree at all. You're reasoning is Indy 4-ish.

Your reasoning is very narrow and soccermomish. You are dismissing an entire asset/tool in film making. I on the other hand believe there instances where both restraint and directness are called for.

What you're saying is analogous to someone saying the final kiss in Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet should be excised to "She stares at Romeos face lovingly." And just leave it at that. That's not dramatically satisfying in the least bit. No matter how many innuendo ridden lighting set ups and implicit information the director of the play would like to convey...sometimes you just have to have the kiss.

People have been saying similar things to yourself since the dawn of films, where even kisses were considered explicit material and sex. Would you also contend that kissing can be done without as well? Let's keep all intimacy to a nice 6 feet of distance apart.

That's all you're arguing for. A sex scene is just a higher level of physical intimacy than a kiss. But both are some form of intimacy.

and I disagree, I think it reflects a lack of imagination and filmmaking style, often the director or screenwriter takes the easy way out.

I feel like you missed the boat which handed out the part of the brain that deals with visceral satisfaction.

Do you also believe having someone tell you what sky diving feels like is the same as you physically jump out of an airplane?

[Wojo 2,453]

That's all you're arguing for. A sex scene is just a higher level of physical intimacy than a kiss. But both are some form of intimacy.

But a kiss can be done tastefully. A little boy kisses a little girl on the cheek on the cover of a Hallmark card, and everyone thinks it's cute. A man riding a girl on the cover of a Hallmark card is a problem any way you slice it. How do you tastefully show sex in a movie? I don't think you can. You basically have to go right up to it, close the curtain, and just let the audience "know" what's going on. Let's give props to Spielberg for tastefully showing it in The Last Crusade: Indy and Elsa start making out, teasing each other, biting lips, they embrace...and then the gondola goes past. The audience knows what's going to happen next. What do you gain by showing it? Here comes the unrated cut of The Last Crusade, where we see Alison Doody's boobies. Hooray. Kids, leave the room.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

blume, agian quit with the indy4ish arguments, they are so ineffective, and for you quite frankly embarrassing. Your whole kissing soccermomish thing is just sad.

Let me state that Im not calling for censorship, I do not think they(sex scenes) should not be shown, I simple said they do not improve a movie.

of all the people on this board you lecturing me about sex is just hilarious. given my experience I can honestly say that on screen sex doesn't equate to the real thing. Not even close. I suggest you go get you some. Movie depictions of any events can be powerful, dramitic, even erotic, but none substitute for real life. But I still beleive their are intimate moments in a persons life, including sex that just don't make a film better the more explicit they are.

and leave the amatuerish psychoanalysis of my comments to HB, its his forte.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I think The Reader depicted pretty realistic sex.

[Ollie 1,059]

While showing sex in films doesn't bother me, I do believe that showing less and leaving some to the imagination works quite well.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

[Wojo 2,453]

I do believe that showing less and leaving some to the imagination works quite well.

That's why the Vicky's Secret catalog is sexier than Hustler.

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

While showing sex in films doesn't bother me, I do believe that showing less and leaving some to the imagination works quite well.

It depends on the situation, or the intention of the scene.

[QMM 4]

Open letter from David Hayter, one of the writers

So it has been five months since I saw my first rough cut of WATCHMEN, and eight days since the premiere of the film I've been working on since late in the year 2000.

The reviews are out -- Some outstanding, others rankly dismissive, which can be frustrating for the people involved, (though I can only speak for myself,) because I firmly believe that WATCHMEN, the novel, must be read through more than once to even have the faintest grip on it. And I believe the film is the same.

I've seen it twice now, and despite having run the movie in my head thousands of times, my two viewings still don’t' allow me to view the film with the proper distance or objectivity. Is it Apocalypse Now? Is it Blade Runner? Is it Kubrick, or Starship Troopers? I don’t know yet.

All I know is that I had a pretty amazing experience the two times I've seen it. And both viewings produced remarkably different experiences. The point is, I have listened for years, to complaints from true comic book fans, that "not enough movies take the source material seriously." "Too many movies puss out," or "They change great stories, just to be commercial." Well, I f***ing dare you to say any one of those things about this movie.

This is a movie made by fans, for fans. Hundreds of people put in years of their lives to make this movie happen, and every one of them was insanely committed to retaining the integrity of this amazing, epic tale. This is a rare success story, bordering on the impossible, and every studio in town is watching to see if it will work. Hell, most of them own a piece of the movie.

So look, this is a note to the fanboys and fangirls. The true believers. Dedicated for life.

If the film made you think. Or argue with your friends. If it inspired a debate about the nature of man, or vigilante justice, or the horror of Nixon abolishing term limits. If you laughed at Bowie hanging with Adrian at Studio 54, or the Silhouette kissing that nurse.

Please go see the movie again next weekend.

You have to understand, everyone is watching to see how the film will do in its second week. If you care about movies that have a brain, or balls, (and this film's got both, literally), or true adaptations -- And if you're thinking of seeing it again anyway, please go back this weekend, Friday or Saturday night. Demonstrate the power of the fans, because it'll help let the people who pay for these movies know what we'd like to see. Because if it drops off the radar after the first weekend, they will never allow a film like this to be made again.

In the interests of full disclosure, let me also point out that I do not profi t one cent from an increase in box office, although an increase in box office can add to the value of the writers' eventual residual profits from dvd and tv sales.

But I'm not saying it for money. I'm saying it for people like me. I'm saying it for people who love smart, dark entertainment, on a grand, operatic scale. I'm talking to the Snake fans, the Rorschach fans, the people of the Dark Knight.

And hey, if you hated the film, if you think we committed atrocities, or literary mistakes of a massive, cephalopodic nature. If the movie made you a little sick to your stomach, or made you feel bad about your life. If you hated it for whatever reason, that's cool too. I'm not suggesting you risk gastro-intestinal distress just for the sake of risky filmmaking.

But if you haven't seen it yet? Well, I'll just say this...

It may upset you. And it probably will upset you.

And all along, we really meant it to.

Because face it. All this time...You there, with the Smiley-face pin. Admit it.

All this time, you’ve been waiting for a director who was going to hit you in the face with this story. To just crack you in the jaw, and then bend you over the pool table with this story. With its utterly raw view of the darkest sides of human nature, expressed through its masks of action and beauty and twisted good intentions. Like a fry-basket full of hot grease in the face. Like the Comedian on the=2 0Grassy Knoll. I know, I know...

You say you don't like it. You say you've got issues. I get it.

And yet... You'll be thinking about this film, down the road. It'll nag at you. How it was rough and beautiful. How it went where it wanted to go, and you just hung on. How it was thoughtful and hateful and bleak and hilarious. And for Jackie Earle Haley.

Trust me. You'll come back, eventually. Just like Sally.

Might as well make it count for something.

David Hayter

[Koray Savas 2,251]

It may upset you. And it probably will upset you.

And all along, we really meant it to.

Sure you did. Stick to voice acting Hayter. If you wanted this to be great, shouldn't have gotten effing Zach Snyder.

[Taikomochi 1,136]

David Hayter is now a badass because of voicing Solid Snake and helping with Watchmen.

[Red 75]

Yeah that isn't a cheap ploy to get the movie to make more money at all.

[crocodile 7,990]

This is slightly... embarassing.

Karol

[Hitch 57]

I found it quite titalating.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

You find everything titalating.

[Hitch 57]

And whose bright idea was it to include the opening of Mozart's REQUIEM towards the end???? Didn't work!!!

I felt it worked strongly. Don't bitch about it. You think Bates could have done a better job?

You've never seen me bitch so pipe down. The music didn't work....period. And to say it worked strongly is pretty ludricious. End of speech. As for Bates doing a better job, I think he's more a Beethoven fan from what I saw on his gramophone.

[Ollie 1,059]

Yeah that isn't a cheap ploy to get the movie to make more money at all.

I wonder if that means they are expecting a huge dropoff this weekend, like 70% or more.

[Taikomochi 1,136]

Definitely not. From my surroundings, I saw many people were overly cautious about it, but since most of the people who saw it last weekend adored it, many are going this weekend. I assume the case is not only here.

[Morlock 11]

I think The Reader depicted pretty realistic sex.

Nah, it's shooting, cutting, and scoring aestheticised it into something not all that different from most other sex scenes. Though Winslett's nakedness was far braver than most, even most of her own previous similar scenes, because it wasn't prettied up and objectified. Those were probably the least flattering nude scenes of her, and felt more revealing because of that.

[Wycket 36]

I love Hayter for being Snake, and I think he did a great job with the script for Watchmen. Let's not forget, he was also involved with the first two X-Men films, so its not that surprising he did a good job with this. As for the letter, its nice fan service but also a valid discussion. If people go to see this film, yes it helps give him more money but with Fox taking a portion of the revenue from WB and Paramount, I can't really blame him for wanting the film to gross as much as possible.

It also can help set a trend for studios staying more true to the source material rather than putting out garbage like Fantastic 4 or Ghost Rider. 300 showed that R-rated films can be successful, and if this film does well it also shows that they can be both successful and well made. I won't be seeing it again (at least not this weekend) but I gotta appreciate the effort.

[Jay 37,322]

Yikes, Terry Gilliam's planned ending for his version of the movie sounds awful

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=115514

[Dixon Hill 4,233]

Sentimental drivel!

[A24 4,327]

Zack Snyder: "So, finally I made it to save it from the Terry Gilliams of this world."

More complete interview:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/03/zack-snyder-batman-superman_n_4886277.html

About 300, Watchmen, and Batman vs. Superman ...

[Wycket 36]

Yikes, Terry Gilliam's planned ending for his version of the movie sounds awful

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=115514

Yeah, while I think Synder was a slave to the source a little too much, at least he respected it. I would have been something if Gilliam's movie was a sequel, but if this was the movie that came out in '09 I don't know what I would have thought.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I still dont get how people complain that the film is too close to it's source material, while usually the fans of a book bitch and whine about the changes made by film makers (V For Vendetta or The League Of Extraordinary Gentleman for instance)]

Sometimes a director just can't win....

[A24 4,327]

I still dont get how people complain that the film is too close to it's source material,

I don't care. I have a passion for film, not for comic books. Also, when I watched the film, I was mesmerized from the very first frame to the last. When I later looked up the comic book on the internet, my first reaction was, this can't be it, this is too plain-looking, probably some kind of fan-made expansion.

I kid you not.

Alex

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I had the same reaction.

Last year i decided to to a "superhero" evening and watched the DE of Watchmen and Batman Begins.

Funny how safe and pedestrian and PG-13 the Nolan film feels after Snyder's Watchmen.

[Quintus 5,399]

I did the same with Supergirl. I was absolutely mesmerised by Helen Slater's thighs from their very first frame to their last.