Watchmen

I've actually been sitting here fuming about this. Not only did the guy lay out that spoiler because he thinks the film is worthless (and, by proxy, any and all surprises it offers), but the publication went ahead and let it pass.

So this is what I just sent to The New Yorker:

What I meant by it changing my opinion is that I realized that Watchmen is really pretty silly, as someone said before. Before I start ranting I want to say I think it is a good graphic novel, but I don't think it is some kind of masterpiece, especially compared to great works of literature.

I've been reading books like The Great Gatsby, Catcher in the Rye, and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest in my English class, and compared to those Watchmen seems kind of silly. Really, the pervading pessimissim and misanthropy are kind of amusing. The idea of deconstucting the superhero, on it's base, is a worthwhile idea. But far too often the book starts going into these pointless philosophical ramblings, which do nothing to move the book forward.

I didn't notice the spoiler in The New Yorker before and agree that that is just irresponsible. They should pull that review. Plus, I agree that the review seems more like a review of the book and a chance for the author to rant about Moore and less of a film review.

__________________
"Travis Bickle: Loneliness has followed me my whole life, everywhere. In bars, in cars, sidewalks, stores, everywhere. There's no escape. I'm God's lonely man."

These are good points, but I think we have to remember that Watchmen was written in response to the Golden and Silver Ages of comics, in which every superhero was inherently noble and put-together, and every villain was inherently evil. Superman, for example, has always been the golden boy with little flaws and no inner demons.

Watchmen uses superheroes (as exaggerated examples of righteousness) to illustrate how dangerous it would really be if such exaggerated people were a little more broken, like you and me. This really is designed to serve a more political message about who we elect as our world leaders, and the kinds of beliefs, reservations, and biases they bring to office.

Alan Moore deliberately chooses to portray irony in his characters: the darkest characters are the most righteous, and the brightest characters the most corrupt. Even the chief antagonist carries out his horrible plan for larger, more complex reasons than just greed, vengeance, or the desire for destruction.

As for the characters waxing philosophical, I think there are underpinnings in the rhetoric that make sense after subsequent readings. Dr. Manhattan's chapter, for example, deals quite directly with the implications of the atomic age, where humanity begins to walk the path of playing God. (And he's a walking example of that idea.) Conversely, Rorschach's chapter passes judgment on the existence (or non-existence) of God altogether, which stabs at the heart of faith as well as the "superhero" as a dubious god-like construct.

That is subjective really. And one would not compare that which is incomparable: does one compare great music to great stories or great films?
Such as what? Such "pointless philosophical ramblings" likely add to the book's credibility rather than take from it.

I-max baby!!!!!!!

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

Checking the times that the cinemas I usually go to are showing it at tomorrow - I can never remember what number cinema is IMAX...

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Seeing it on IMAX Thursday...

I'm about to spam you all in 3...2...1...

Hey! You know what you guys might like? Taking a really, really easy Watchmen quiz. It's a beginner's quiz, and it's centered around the graphic novel (as opposed to the movie, which may spawn another quiz before long). Anyone who's read the graphic novel will probably ace it.

Watchmen Quiz

I got an 80%. I haven't read the GN in awhile, so that's not bad.

Yeah, I figure most people will get 8 or 9. A couple of the questions are uber-easy, but a few may require some ponderin'.

I'm debating on whether or not I should go check out the midnight screening tomorrow night. I'm off work for a week to get better, so I don't have anything going on Friday morning, but still...3 hours?

__________________
"I was walking down the street with my friend and he said, "I hear music", as if there is any other way you can take it in. You're not special, that's how I receive it too. I tried to taste it but it did not work." - Mitch Hedberg

I got a 90. Awesome quiz!

I got a 100; easy peasy, lemon squezy. I know the last part just sounded so stupid, .

I haven't read the book in a long while, so admittedly, some of my guesses were borderline shots in the dark.

Anyone who has read it more than once should probably not be counted--the questions could be more difficult.

Aye, as I said, it's intended to be a beginner's quiz. I don't think the general populace is quite as geeky on average as, say, us.

Roger Ebert apparently loved it

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...IEWS/903049997

4 out of 4

__________________

That's great to hear.

Damn, got one wrong.

9/10.

Nice 10/10 , although I wasn't 100 percent sure on who's name got revealed.