How Watchmen Killed 'R'-rated Fantasy Movies 771
An anonymous reader writes "Of all the Hollywood properties consigned to development hell in the reductionist policy of the last 3-4 years of bad economy, the very last to have a prospect of a green light are expensive fantasy and SF projects that fall outside the 'family' remit. Not even the addition of James Cameron to David Fincher's Heavy Metal remake has stopped its begging-bowl passage from studio to studio; Robert Rodriguez's propriety of the Barbarella remake likewise toured the world in vain, apparently unmindful of the very unusual set of cultural and demographic circumstances that caused a major studio to back an 'erotic space opera' in 1968 — and to the fact that these circumstances are not likely to reoccur. David Fincher lamented in 2008 that the creation of dazzling artificial movie worlds is limited to family-friendly output — but in the long wake of the box-office disappointment of the 'R'-rated Watchmen movie, there seems no current prospect that the adults will ever get to play with the kids' toys again." The most frustrating part of this is that Watchmen was actually *good*.
It was OK (Score:4, Insightful)
The most frustrating part of this is that Watchmen was actually *good*.
I wasn't very happy about the altered ending or the removal of the guy reading the comic book.
Re:It was OK (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It was OK (Score:5, Interesting)
I wasn't very happy about the altered ending or the removal of the guy reading the comic book.
I think the movie ending wasn't that bad in that it effectively substituted one common enemy for another. And given Dr. Manhattan's public disillusionment with humanity, it was just as plausible as the original ending. Knowing both endings, I was a lot less upset about that change than I was about the pointless diversions in the Lord of the Rings to Helm's Deep and Osgiliath, for instance. The Watchmen ending actually had the benefit of actually surprising me a little, because I knew how the comic ended and while it was similar, it was not exactly the same.
My only real problem with the ending is that if Dr. Manhattan actually decided to act out, it seems to me that the devastation would have been total. Any government that had any intelligence on him would have wondered why his action was as (relatively) small scale as it was. At least in the original ending, the enemy is not a known quantity to anyone; it can produce fear from both its sheer power and from being an unknown.
Of course, familiarity with Dr. Manhattan's progressing condition might well have caused no small manner of fear and dread in an informed observer over time.
Re:It was OK (Score:5, Interesting)
I read the comic around the same time as the movie coming out. I personally hated the squid ending. It was much more in line with "the smartest man in the world" to simply manipulate Dr Manhattan into being the scapegoat.
Re:It was OK (Score:5, Funny)
The proper response to a Dr M attack is to grovel in fear, because even if he leaves, another Dr M might be created some day. The squid ending has the logical conclusion of forcing countries together to fight the outside enemy
So you're saying the changed ending wasn't exactly squid pro quo?
Re: (Score:3)
I've read the book and watched the movie. The comic, of course, has a lot more literary "space", as indeed do most books. When writing a screenplay for a movie that is going to be at best 2.5 hours long, you've got to decide how best to pursue the basic narrative. Stuff got left behind, but all in all the spirit of the original was maintained. Yes, the ending was altered, but the point of the ending was not, so I could live with it. Curse of the Black Freighter was left out, and how could it not be? H
Re: (Score:3)
Comedian OTOH was ambiguous enough to be universally adored by the circle of my friends...
I think of the Comedian as what would the Joker be like if he, for a laugh, had convinced Batman that he was a hero instead of a villain. "No, look, I beat up bad guys, see, I'm one of you heroes..."
Re:It was OK (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Blaming the attacks on Dr. M really doesn't make any sense though. For decades he'd been an extension of the American military...essentially a walking, talking atom bomb. Would the world have been united had America "accidentally" nuked a bunch of cities? It need to be an exterior threat like aliens. Maybe not an actual Squid and maybe not just attacking NYC, sure. But, framing Dr. M really makes no sense.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm inclined to agree with you about the ending, although I think it can be argued either way. Removing "Tales of the Black Freighter", on the other hand, was the right decision. There just wasn't *room* for it. Yeah, it was neat, and yeah, it added a whole 'nother layer to the symbolism. But the movie was already two hours, forty-two minutes as shown in the theatres (with longer cuts on the DVD releases--up to three and half hours!). Adding in the Tales would've made the thing unwatchable in one sitti
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't Tales of the Black Freighter all of 20-30 minutes? A 3 or 4 hour movie is hardly unwatchable in one sitting.
But I do agree it wasn't needed in the theatrical release.
Re:Ending made more sense.... (Score:4, Insightful)
However, there was no need for a full frontal Dr. Manhattan.
I simply do not get at all why people get hung up about this. The guy can't be bothered with clothes anymore and nobody dares to tell him otherwise anymore. What's the issue?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:It was OK (Score:4, Interesting)
All I have to say is that the Watchmen adaptation was done by someone who knew and loved the material, whereas you look at the awful V For Vendetta adaptation, and you see someone using a story very much based in 1980s sensibilities as some sort of Bush-era parable. I'm a fan of both graphic novels, which to my mind represent the summit of "comic books" and set out Alan Moore as one of the great writers of the last thirty years, and I felt Watchmen was as good an adaptation as you could get on the screen, but thought V For Vendetta was just a gawdawful pile of crap.
Good? (Score:5, Insightful)
Watchmen was an overlong, overwrought, overly wordy, over hyped, over produced mess.
It was not, by any stretch of the imagination, good.
Re:Good? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Really? What was the other movie you saw?
Re:Good? (Score:5, Funny)
It is long, but for very good reason
I might be confused by the new Slashdot look mangling the threading - are we still talking about the penis?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I don't really feel I need to watch it again. Maybe in 5 years or so. The first few comments here from people saying it was "good" seem to be the ones that were already fans of the graphic novel. Now, I like things to stay pretty true to the originals too, but what is good in a book isn't necessarily good in a movie.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good? (Score:5, Insightful)
"For my part, it is one of the best movies I have ever seen." - (Score:5, Insightful)
Neither of these comments is a troll or insightful.
Who watches the watchmen? Clearly nobody mods the moderators.
Re: (Score:3)
So why is the blanket claim that a movie is *good* not a troll? Why does it not go both ways?
Is it really necessary to preface *everything* one writes with "In my opinion"?
Re:Good? (Score:4, Insightful)
For precisely that reason - the negative point claimed it was bad as a fact. The positive one claimed it was good in the author's opinion.
Re: (Score:3)
Who says I agree or disagree?
You have no way of deducing my opinion of the quality of Watchmen based on my statements. I'm just talking about the way the two opposing viewpoints were presented.
Re:Good? (Score:5, Interesting)
Watchmen was an overlong, overwrought, overly wordy, over hyped, over produced mess.
It was not, by any stretch of the imagination, good.
This is 100% correct. Mode me troll and flamebait, I don't give a fuck.
Watchmen was a bad movie and it failed because it was a bad movie.
Is Slashdot going to post an article next week about Scott Pilgrim and how it was actually a good movie?
Being different, weird, and so against the grain to the point of being contrarian, doesn't make something unique, deep, or good. It just makes anti-social people feel better for liking it, as well as more inclined to like it in the first place because it's different, weird, and contrarian - just like them.
The only things the general public saw when they saw Watchmen were an unnecessary blue dick, a bad plot, forced edginess in the form of "we're heroes, but we're so dark and moody we often act like villains and play out our own little soap opera in our secret club", and shitty costumes that screamed "Batman Ripoff".
And you know what? This was one of the rare occasions when the general public got something right.
If you liked it, fine. Enjoy your movie.
But to say that it would have done better if it was PG-13 is a joke.
Most faithful adaptation != Good (Score:5, Funny)
Really? I thought it was one of the most faithful adaptations of anything I've ever seen
I can get you a faithful adaptation short video of a dog taking a dump on the side walk. It could be the most faithful adaptation ever constructed. But you know what? It's still just a video of a dog taking a crap.
-Rick
Re: (Score:3)
My girlfriend managed 20 minutes of Watchman before finding something better to do and I wish I'd done the same; I had a hard time finding any motivation to keep watching it past half-way.
Good, it's not just me.
No, it was not just you, his girlfriend did a bunch of us in the lobby.
Games Instead (Score:3)
I think if you like this kind of thing, you have to skip films and play games instead. I recommend Dead Space 2 right now.
Re:Games Instead (Score:5, Insightful)
But there's no reason that they couldn't make them and turn a decent profit. The real problem is that the studios think a 'big name' movie needs to have a $150 million (or more) budget. If you spend that kind of money of course you're going to have problems turning a profit on a movie that half your potential audience can't, or doesn't want to see simply because of the rating. But, if you can cut just a few corners, user lesser known actors (but then you might actually have to put some effort into casting! The horror!), and independent special effects companies you can make a movie for 1/5th the typical Hollywood action movie budget and it becomes much more profitable.
District 9 is the quintessential modern example. Unknown actors, small special effects company trying to prove itself, a cheap filming location, etc. Revenues of $210 million (barely enough to come out ahead for a typical action sci-fi movie), but because of the much smaller budget ($30 million) it was a roaring financial success. Because when you come down to it, the actors were surprisingly effective, special effects just shouldn't cost tens of millions of dollars anymore, and it is the story first and the action second that people want to see and the film delivers both very well; over hyped special effects and famous actors a distant 3rd and 4th in the action sci-fi genre.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Games Instead (Score:4, Informative)
While Zoic Studios may be small, I'd say they've proven themselves several times over BEFORE District 9. Here's just a quick list of what they've worked on, starting from 2003 and going forward.
No Australian R18 for games (Score:2)
I think if you like this kind of thing, you have to skip films and play games instead.
Films have Australian R18; games don't. What country is taking Australian expats again?
One of the best movies I have seen... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Personally, I would have rather seen the money sunk into more movies from the Dead Gentlemen for continuations of "the Gamers: Dorkness Rising" and "Journey Quest".
Lets see, GDR budget was ~$1,000, with a whole lot of volunteers.
Season 2 of JQ has a $100,000 target budget.
The Watchmen budget was ~$150,000,000.
I think the geek subculture would gain far more entertainment from 50 more G:DR/JQ type productions than the 3 hours of drivel the Watchmen offered us.
-Rick
Not the same thing (Score:5, Insightful)
The most frustrating part of this is that Watchmen was actually *good*.
Well, that was your opinion as a fan of the comic, I imagine. I am not a comic guy, saw the ads and didn't find myself particularly wanting to see it. I might Netflix it at some point, but it's not currently in my queue.
I strongly suspect the real issue is there aren't enough people with taste similar to yours to make the types of movies you want to see financially viable. I know it's frustrating - many of my favorite TV shows over the past 20 years have quickly withered - but that's life. There's no need to look for a broader conspiracy, although people do seem predisposed to finding conspiracies even when none exists.
Re: (Score:3)
I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it as long as you don't need "Die Hard" or "The Expendables" level shoot em up action to enjoy a movie.
Re: (Score:3)
Seconded. Seeing the movie Watchmen as excellent is in no way related to having a comic book reader intellect. It is well acted, explores interesting themes, and is not dumbed down or childishly saccharine.
Re:Not the same thing (Score:4, Interesting)
Go with your instincts on this one. I'll let u on a secret that I had to learn the hard way. Word of mouth is probably the worst way to find out about a product. Because our minds are trained to think it's actually automatically good. I can't tell you how many things I looked into and bought because of Slashdot (game opinions are the worst--almost every game ppl said they liked on /, were AWFUL). Don't listen to the OP.
Watchmen is probably the worst movie I have ever seen. And it was only rented! And I didn't even pay for the rental! I actually was pissed that I spent the 2 some hours on the movie. It was so bad. That's why, not because of some R rating. I mean, where do I start with how bad this thing was:
1) It had awful pacing. There would be 30 min of dullness followed by 5 min of something interesting. Then another 45 min of dullness. /. beloved comic was good, this movie was not. It was told poorly
2) The story made no sense. Even if
3) Insanely lame characters with lame things that they did throughout the movie
4) Too much talking. Yes talking and back story and dialog are good. Not good is when it goes 30 mins with ramblings on and no discernible direction
5) That lame constant voiceover by that Rorschach guy.
There are so many more reasons, but now I'm just getting pissed on how bad that movie is and how everyone here loves it. Just don't do it man, don't even watch it on channel 11 when you're bored on a sunday afternoon. That's when you know it's bad: when it's not even worth that!
Re:Not the same thing (Score:5, Funny)
Translation:
1) "I have no attention span; I need flashes of light and loud noises to enjoy a movie"
2) "I can't follow a story more complex than 'good guy vs. bad guy' or 'guy wants to fuck/date/marry girl'"
3) "Nuance is lost on me. Even when I have characters that are textured enough to sleep with someone who attempted to rape them, I still can't see anything interesting in them."
4) see 1
5) "In a 2 hour movie, I focused on maybe 5 minutes of narration"
Please, give us more details on why you don't like this movie.
Also, what do you recommend? The "Ow My Balls" channel?
--Jeremy
Re: (Score:3)
The most frustrating part of this is that Watchmen was actually *good*.
Well, that was your opinion as a fan of the comic, I imagine.
I never read the comic but loved the movie. Went into it cold, not knowing anything other than people said the comic was one of the best ever written, and that it was some kind of alternate history thing. I fell in love with it. From the very beginning to the last frame.
But then I watched part of it again and, well, the acting wasn't that good after all. In fact, it kind of ruins it. It was a bold move to cast a bunch of no-names. It paid off for a couple of the characters, but not all of them. It'
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not a fan of the graphic novel. I do enjoy manga and doujins.
I saw Watchmen in the theater based on the sheer hype. It was entertaining but I haven't though about it since. I liked Kick Ass better, although there were less themes and it was more about putting your brain on hold and seeing action.
There isn't anything wrong with Watchmen per se, but if the potential audience is smaller, it would be better to just make the movie with a smaller budget. The average person isn't all that deep or thinks ab
Re:Not the same thing (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the most unforgivable change was removing Dr. Manhattan's private conversation with Ozymandias at the very end.
(SEMI-)SPOILER ALERT
OZY: "Hello, Jon. I was hoping we'd have the chance to talk. Jon... I know people think me callous, but I've made myself feel every death. By day I imagine endless faces. by night... well, I dream about swimming towards a hideous... No. never mind. It isn't significant...
What's significant is that I know. I know I've struggled across the backs of murdered innocents to save humanity... But someone had to take the weight of that awful, necessary crime. I'd hoped you'd understand, unlike Rorschach..."
MAN: "You needn't consider Rorschach. I strongly doubt He'll reach civilization... but yes, I understand, without condoning or condemning. Human affairs cannot be my concern. I'm leaving this galaxy for one less complicated."
OZY: "But you'd regained interest in human life..."
MAN: Yes, I have. I think perhaps I'll create some. Goodbye, Adrian."
OZY: "Jon, wait, before you leave... I did the right thing, didn't I? it all worked out in the end."
MAN: "'In the end?' Nothing ends, Adrian. Nothing ever ends."
OZY: "Jon? Wait! What do you mean by..."
[Manhattan vanishes, leaving Ozymandias to his doubts]
END (SEMI-)SPOILER
Seriously, it took me about two minutes to write that chunk of the script, including digging out the comic. It would be a 45 second scene. Of all the things they COULD have cut, but decided not to, they chose the most meaningful exchange in the entire thing? That's just asinine.
If not even Watchmen could do well... (Score:2)
The most frustrating part of this is that Watchmen was actually *good*.
Well, yeah. The way I see it however, if not even Watchmen did well enough to satisfy the studios then R-rated fantasy movies never had a future to begin with.
Don't blame FILMS blame the SYSTEM (Score:2)
Artistically speaking, freedom of expression is limited in the United States (and other countries, don't get me wrong) because of regulatory bodies that exist for the sole purpose of deciding what is appropriate content and what is not.
This is a fixed-position point of view in an ever changing sociological landscape and it increasingly does not make sense.
I often wonder if films like "Taxi Driver" could ever be made today.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What if Hollywood never did remakes? Then we wouldn't have had Humphrey Bogart as Sam Spade; there had already been a movie made of the Maltese Falcon ten years before. How about Ben-Hur? The Charlton Heston one was the third movie made. Sometimes the remakes are worthwhile.
Re: (Score:3)
Artistically speaking, freedom of expression is limited in the United States (and other countries, don't get me wrong) because of regulatory bodies that exist for the sole purpose of deciding what is appropriate content and what is not.
Which regulatory bodies are you referring to, specifically? The FCC? They don't regulate movies. The MPAA? They're a private outfit. They don't censor anything; they just attach a letter to most major studio releases so people can decide if they want to watch it or not. (Whether the letters themselves make sense is a separate question.) That movies like Watchmen are having a hard time getting financed these days has nothing to do with regulation--it has to do with Watchmen being an expensive film that
Re: (Score:3)
Self-censorship is the best form of censorship. It's even better than having censorship imposed externally because no one can see it. The "letters" are an effective form of censorship because it limits the audience of the movie. Get anything over an "R" and a Hollywood movie can not make it's money back. It won't be shown in most (if not all) of the major theater chains. So you have the carrot of producing inoffensive family fare gets you the largest possible audience, and the stick of doing anything t
What about "Pretty Baby"? (Score:2)
Usually when they release a film in DVD they include material that was not present in the original. "Pretty Baby" is the opposite, the DVD shows less than was in the VHS or theatre versions.
I waited for the DVD release (Score:2)
Holy crap (Score:2)
This is by far the most incoherent OP I have ever read. Can someone translate this guy into English?
Re: (Score:2)
No, you'll need to use Night Owl's goggles to understand it.
Don't have any? Oh well.
*good* vs. *not good* (Score:2)
The long copyright period . . . (Score:2)
A artist/craftsman, using todays video editing, drawing, and compositing tools could make a fantastic movie based on comic book heroes. The tools are out there. It would take thousands of man-hours, but it could be done. I also think that there are people out there who would consider such work a labor of love. Computing power is getting fabulous. Pretty soon, real-time previewing a near-photographic quality 3D vector-based animation for minutes at a time, is going to be affordable for every cartoon mov
I was really looking forward to "Lost Girls". (Score:2)
But I don't think it can be made into a PG-13 film.
Alas.
Correction (Score:3)
The most frustrating part of this is that Watchmen was actually *fucking awesome*
When has any movie of a comic had a better sub-ending than the book? Sub-ending you ask? Rorschach's death is the real meat of the finale not the geopolitical change.
Anyone who thinks tits don't sell tickets is dumb. (Score:3)
Tits in space? I'm there. See my previous posts related to the video "All is Full of Love" by Chris Cunningham and Bjork.
Re: (Score:2)
To anybody making movies, I second this.
Or, just keep making Resident Evil movies until Milla Jovovich doesn't have the body for the mandatory nude scene.
Something here is not like the other (Score:3, Interesting)
Second, IMHO, there are four audiences for films. First is the family, which is big as it can be as many as four tikets sold if one person wants to see a movie. No nudity in family movies. Second is the teenage date movie. These tend to be gross and with some nudity, but they are marketed to boys, and boys want to see teats, not penises, and also often must pass parent approval. Third are movies made for families with older teens, or adults who go and see movies, where there is something substantial in the movie. Nudity is optional, but promotion has to be done in such a way that potential viewer gets what the movie is about. Fourth is art crowd. Cinematography, story, writing is the thing. Nudity and sex is not always expected but no one is going to stay away because it is explicitly there. Budgets tend to be lower, and stories tend to be non-fantastical, at least outside the realm of believing that people with no money can afford expensive Paris flats.
When I look at watchmen I see a movie that did none of these things. It did not market outside of the group of viewers that understood it. It also feel to the current situation in which a movie that is not good, and does not do enough to promote the oening weekend, will fail because everyone who did not go the opening weekend will know it is not good and not go.
Why would you remake Heavy Metal? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is as bad as the remake of Red Dawn, yeah for those who didn't know they are doing a remake of Red Dawn.
There was zero reason to Watchmen to have released as R rated. If anything I got the distinct impression they were after that so all those geeks who would see the film regardless of rating could somehow feel smug that they were seeing an serious "artsy" film, you know what I mean.
Who needs nudity to tell most of these stories? This is starting to sound like I am in MMORPG where every other word in chat is a cuss word or bigoted as if that somehow elevates the participants to a higher level of maturity or intelligence.
Just give me good stories. Nudity is a cop out, the examples all cited by the article are dwell on nudity. Sorry, Alien was rated R for violence and gore and it was a damn site better than Watchmen. It was story and the presentation of the story that mattered, not who was wearing what.
Re:Why would you remake Heavy Metal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Moviegoers want a plain good v. evil happy ending (Score:5, Insightful)
Watchmen wasn't too dissimilar to the bittersweet ending of Sin City. You liked the characters, but most of the "good" (read: likable) guys actually die. The key is that both of these comics explore the subtlety that what is good versus bad isn't cut and dried. Most people aren't really willing to spend their two hours of escape dealing with these subjects and want to see the bad guy lose because it represents their boss or ex or some other negative character in their lives.
Contrast Watchmen and Sin City with LOTR: ROTK where the ending was again turned into a much happier event than what was in the books. Now look at which of these three movies I discussed made the most money. That's what the studio execs are most interested in. I just hope the genre doesn't completely go away because of straight money concerns. Sometimes producing art for its own sake is a worth cause.
Good..? (Score:2)
"The most frustrating part of this is that Watchmen was actually *good*"
Yes, right up until they changed the ending and basically implied that an American man, rather than an alien race, was responsible for the destruction of New York city.
I always thought that the point of the ending in the comic book was to gather the human race together, to defend themselves against an alien aggressor. In the movie, it felt as though the attack had been perpetrated by a man who was at one time in his life an American cit
Nothing to see here (Score:3)
Or maybe... (Score:3)
Or maybe it's because that neither Heavy Metal nor Barbarella should be remade! Barbarella was pretty bad to begin with. Heavy Metal wasn't bad, but it's very much a product of the time it was made. You'd want to remake it with different stories, and then it wouldn't be Heavy Metal any more. And lets face it, it's hard to find anyone who would defend Heavy Metal 2000 as a worth watching.
I just re-watched Heavy Metal last week, after not having seen it in at least 20 years. I was showing it to my teenage boys (the movie's target demographic, to be sure), and they were ripping it to shreds. Sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll aren't what they used to be, apparently.
Re: (Score:3)
And lets face it, it's hard to find anyone who would defend Heavy Metal 2000 as a worth watching.
But it spawned a pretty solid soundtrack.
the rating system is broken (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not even that one particular movie can ruin the chances of other, completely unrelated movies. It's simply that the whole premise of 'rating' a movie based on specific content without any context is a stupid idea. So there is some nudity in Watchmen. So what? Do you think a pair of breasts is going break the fragile little mind of a 10 year old? Yes, I'm sure some people think that, but why should the nation as a whole suffer from it? Let them start their own, even more conservative rating system, one which the general public can ignore.
To compare things, I just looked up the rating for Watchmen in the Netherlands. It's 16, which is the highest rating we've got. (it's all, 6, 9, 12, 16) This isn't that unusual. For example, it was the same rating given to the Dark Knight. It's probably due more to violence than nudity.
No great loss. (Score:4, Insightful)
If You Missed It (Score:3)
Make multiple cuts: NC-17, R, PG, G (Score:3)
All they have to do is make multiple cuts, one for each rating. Mark one "The Director's Cut" and you are done. Make the money back for investors with the PG version, let the R version live on as the canonical version for true movie fans and for a future, better time. Ideally, this would all be in one digital copy, inside an app that can play whichever version you want, then cinemas could play the PG version by day and have R showings at night. Similarly, home users could buy one iTunes Extra with buttons for each version, and play whichever version they prefer.
Re: (Score:2)
Try reading the magazine - a lot of it is the same kind of thing, so the plot sounds reasonable to me, if a lot pornier than the last one.
Re: (Score:2)
Riiight. Because, Hollywood plots are always based on well thought-out ideas with cohesive plots and never stray into the realm of thinly put together stories.
And, really, if you think about it ... a series of vignettes that take place around a mysterious glowing
Re: (Score:3)
Is the plot of Heavy Metal really any more sophisticated than that of Avatar? Guy saves a girl('s people) on a different planet for sexual favours.
The point is that Pandora was awesome to look at. Same with the environments of Heavy Metal (I'd argue, more so, since they're completely fantastical rather than just alien).
Re:Heavy Metal? Plot? (Score:4, Interesting)
I liked Heavy Metal and Avatar was fun to watch, but Avatar's biggest problem was morality-driven plot simpler than "do good" books you'd give to a six year old. From a story perspective, Heavy Metal seemed more involved (and fairly non-linear given the segments involved different characters and animation styles).
IMHO, "good" movies for adults have plots that share the real world's complexities, moral ambiguities and trade-offs. Nothing in the real world is as straightforward and simple as the dumb plot in Avatar.
Re: (Score:2)
Hm... and how is that plot different from any "maid in distress"-story where in the end the guy marries the maid? There are hundreds of Hollywood movies of that kind - only difference being that the "sexual favours" are called "marriage".
Re: (Score:3)
only difference being that the "sexual favours" are called "marriage".
Now that's crazy talk.
Re: (Score:2)
It would have been great without the giant blue glowing penis though.
Why? Curious to know what your objection to it was.
Re:It was good. (Score:5, Funny)
Well, from my perspective. Having watched the film on a 80ft or so tall IMAX screen, I left the movie feeling totally inadequate.
Re:It was good. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not against seeing things that are giant and / or blue, but I prefer my movies without penis shots. Call me crazy.
Genuine question: Why do you care? This comes up everytime the Watchmen movie is discussed and I just don't get it. I watched the whole film without any particular reaction to his dick. It's just a dick.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He's afraid that if he doesn't express outrage over seeing a photo of a penis, everybody will think he's one of them homma-sexshuls.
Re:It was good. (Score:4, Insightful)
What did seeing it do? The story for Dr M already showed him disconnected from reality several well aimed shots could easily show he was naked without having to see a bare ass or penis.
Its like Torchwood, Dexter or True Blood, the first time you see something edgy is cool but for example I've grown bored of the sex scenes in True Blood and skip through them. If I want to watch porn, I'll watch porn. Watchmen was edgy for edgy for edgy's sake.
The Dark Knight was far darker and adult when compared to Watchman.
Re:It was good. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it sums up everything wrong with Watchman, the whole film seemed to be trying to be edgy to an unnecessary degree. What did seeing it do? The story for Dr M already showed him disconnected from reality several well aimed shots could easily show he was naked without having to see a bare ass or penis.
See, to me I have to question why you're starting from the position of his nudity having to be done for the sake of "edginess" or why other ways of showing his increasing detachment could be used without "having to see a bare ass or penis". You've taken for granted that we should not see such things without there being a special reason for it, and in the case of Watchman where there is a reason for it, you've expressed that another way of satisfying that reason should have been found. Implicit in your argument is an assumption that his nudity is a bad thing that should only be included in special circumstances. Whereas from my point of view, it's a complete non-issue not requiring any justification. What I'm curious about is why you see it differently.
Re: (Score:3)
What about people who feel that a giant blue penis might have artistic, poetic, emotional, psychological, literary and ethical value, but not so much sexual value, and want to see it for those reasons? I see at least one penis every single day that I open my eyes, frankly, the mere sight of a penis lost any meaningful shock value to me around age 15.
Maybe if it were a huge porno-boner ejaculating toxic jism all over the place I could see an objection to it that amounts to more than immature homophobia... bu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your confusion probably comes from the fact that Dr. Manhattan's costume changes drastically over the story. It goes from a full set of clothes, to the speedo, to "blowing in the wind", paralleling the character's increasing detachment from humanity.
Re: (Score:3)
That sort of thing would be less like a disconnect with humanity, but more of some sort of psychological problem/flaw.
A super powerful intelligent and objective creature that's become detached from humanity would be more likely to forget or not bother to put on any human form at all - just pick one that's convenient for the task. The naked human form is certainly
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, you can thank the Puritans for that. Instead of the nude human body just being what it is. Nudity = sex = profane = sin.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree with Under_Tow completely: I'm all for nudity in movies, but male nudity is just a waste of space where we could have had female nudity. There's nothing deep about this, any more than my preference for chocolate ice cream over strawberry.
If you see some deeper significance to people's basic tastes and desire to see things that please them, those are the issues you bright in with you.
Re:Or are you happy to see me? (Score:5, Insightful)
Meh, I've seen better blue wieners. I believe the real reason Watchmen tanked is that it came out a little bit too late. When times are good, people can enjoy gritty anti-heroes. When times are tight, they hate ambiguity in their heroes and want something a lot more black and white than Watchmen.
Re:Or are you happy to see me? (Score:4, Funny)
Meh, I've seen better blue wieners
One of the most insightful comments in this entire discussion - but I have no mod points today!
I take it this is a warning not to bother reading the rest of the comments?
And on the topic of blue wieners... (Score:3)
Not at all. He was the victim of a villainous alien suite. That is not nearly the same thing as being a real anti-hero. His real character never changed. He is still one of the more goody-two-shoes heroes ever invented. Nice try though.
I think he was taking about sexually. ZING!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And The Dark Knight, rated PG-13, was easily 10 times better than Watchmen. Why so hung up on ratings? Why so... serious?
Re: (Score:3)
Watchmen stuck about as close as they could to the comic
...which must be why Alan Moore, the guy who wrote the comic, refused to allow his name to be associated with the movie, yes?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Right, so everybody on /. understands Alan Moore's creative works better than Alan Moore. Who gives a shit what his intent was, or what he would have wanted, as long as somebody makes a really cool movie using his characters and ideas in a way we think is entertaining.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Right, so everybody on /. understands Alan Moore's creative works better than Alan Moore.
Wouldn't be the first time. I don't see any evidence that Moore has a particularly deep understanding of making movies, for example.
Who gives a shit what his intent was, or what he would have wanted, as long as somebody makes a really cool movie using his characters and ideas in a way we think is entertaining.
Exactly. This is one of the reasons I'm not a big fan of long copyrights. They keep others from playing with someone's story in a way we think is entertaining.
Plus, it looks like I'll die of old age before I see any legal Disney porn. That's a real tragedy.
Re:Or are you happy to see me? (Score:5, Funny)
No, what stuck out the most (to me, at least) was that the penis demonstrated better acting than anyone in that movie.