![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Misc.
Firstly Happy Birthday ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
vampirefever! Hope you've had a great day filled with your favourite things. :)
*****
In other news Darcy and I went to see 'Watchmen' last night, and it impressed me hugely. I do not know the graphic novel at all, so didn't quite know what to expect apart from DARK STUFF, but (although the violence was occasionally so gruesome that I had to cover my eyes) I really, really liked it, and we both wanted to go re-watch it immediately, to catch all the stuff we missed first time round. I love smart movies that make me think!
And that is all, because it is late and I'm half-asleep.
vampirefever! Hope you've had a great day filled with your favourite things. :)*****
In other news Darcy and I went to see 'Watchmen' last night, and it impressed me hugely. I do not know the graphic novel at all, so didn't quite know what to expect apart from DARK STUFF, but (although the violence was occasionally so gruesome that I had to cover my eyes) I really, really liked it, and we both wanted to go re-watch it immediately, to catch all the stuff we missed first time round. I love smart movies that make me think!
And that is all, because it is late and I'm half-asleep.
no subject
So I would reccomend buying, borrowing, or stealing a copy.
no subject
Oops here is the link if you are intrested. Sorry I haven't been commenting as often, I been more of a lurker than anything else. I am hoping to see the Watchmen next week.
no subject
I have certainly thought of getting it (I like graphic novels generally, so it's win/win), so it's probably just a matter of time!
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
And I think The Incredibles is a much more adult (and better written) look at almost the exact same issues. But few people will see it that way "cause it's a cartoon." Watchmen, however, is just so...juvenile in its philosophizing and fixation on the base side of humanity.
no subject
And I think The Incredibles is a much more adult (and better written) look at almost the exact same issues.
Hmm. I think the main difference (and where I think Watchmen more interesting), is that the heroes in The Incredibles have actual superpowers, which no one (except Manhattan) has in Watchmen. The ordinary-people-turned-vigilantes - and the consequences of that - actually reminds me more of Faith in S3 than anything else. And yes, it is (mostly) pretty bleak, but I was actually surprised at how much hope there was, compared to what I'd been expecting. Dan has actually managed to retain his humanity and, if I had time, I'd try to delve into Rorchach and The Comedian.
But mostly it was Manhattan's line (towards the end, from memory) about how how he could change anything in the universe, except human beings, that stood out (OK, there was other stuff too, but for now this'll do) - because it was a very theologically astute moment, and I'm not used to movies delving into theology - or getting it right!
(Must run. But that's some of what I came away with.)
no subject
It is true about the line referencing humanity's inability to change itself - I certainly agree with that (though I do think humans can be changed). It certainly is a step up from "The innate goodness of man is more than enough for a perfect world and people don't need changing." At least, I think so.
You're completely right - there's a lot of hope, even more so than in the original - Dan and Laurie are presented as rediscovering heroism and love, Rorschach, though sociopathic, does fight for justice and truth, and the Comedian isn't completely irredeemable. But the fact remains for me that each of them isn't as real in the two and a half hours than one minute of one of the characters from the Incredibles - the writing quality is that disparate (I think).
As for the powers thing - while it's superficially true that none of the characters but Manhattan have powers, the way they're presented (being able to punch through walls, throwing really heavy objects twenty feet, jumping ten/twenty feet in the air straight up without using necessary muscles, catching bullets) kind of ruined the illusion for me. I know it's a trope for films of this sort, but I thought if they were trying to push the "realism" of the world, they should have been more careful in the fight choreography.
But that's just my thought - I'm kinda fixated on the subject right now, cause I'm working on a massive post on superhero films (20 or so of them), which culimates in a comparison of The Incredibles and Watchmen.
no subject
Oh I'm with you on that. And also that the violence is *much* too graphic and unnecessary, and detracts from the film.
Sorry if I gave a killjoy impression.
Oh no worries! You're making me have to think more deeply about my reactions, and that is always good in my book. :)
It is true about the line referencing humanity's inability to change itself - I certainly agree with that (though I do think humans can be changed).
Of course humans can change - but that change cannot be forced on them... I'm thinking about the concept of free will. F.ex. you cannot *force* someone to love you - love has to be given freely. Likewise Manhattan cannot 'fix' Rorschach or The Comedian, nor stop Laurie from caring. (Also see the Buffy-verse and endless discussions on what the 'soul' is...)
But the fact remains for me that each of them isn't as real in the two and a half hours than one minute of one of the characters from the Incredibles - the writing quality is that disparate (I think).
Huh. I... guess we'll have to disagree. (Not that I think the characters in Watchmen are uniformly brilliant, and I very much liked The Incredibles, but... I just like broken heroes. The human/monster thing is one of those that fascinates me, and Watchmen pressed a *lot* of those buttons. Might make a post.)
I know it's a trope for films of this sort, but I thought if they were trying to push the "realism" of the world, they should have been more careful in the fight choreography.
Agreed. Still they're not exactly X-Men, more like Slayers (power-wise).
I'm kinda fixated on the subject right now, cause I'm working on a massive post on superhero films (20 or so of them), which culimates in a comparison of The Incredibles and Watchmen.
Sounds interesting. Still, IMHO there's *nothing* in The Incredibles to match Ozymandias' "I pressed the button 35 minutes ago" and the corresponding moral nightmare. (The Brave New world reminded me of the Jasmine-arc on Angel, actually. I like stuff like that!)
no subject
Hmmm, I have a, er, complex view of the will, and its freedom, but I think I buy what you're saying to a large extent. The idea I think is great about this sentiment (and in Serenity), is that a government can't make people better. It can make better opportunities available, but it can't make the people choose them, and if it does, it has crossed the line.
I suppose my statement comparing the characters is a bit over the top - but I've been innundated on the sites I visit with the kind of adulation about how "deep" the characters are - when really, most of them only have one or two defining characteristics. And most of those people seem to sneer at other superhero films for being too "black and white," when what they really want is immaturity.
I do enjoy a moderate amount of "broken hero" (I still love Buffy, though the comics (while canon ;-) bore me to death). But I think there's waaaay too much of the "broken" and not enough fixing in today's stories. For me, a superhero film's power is primarily in how the heros can inspire us to similar acts of heroism, or accepting the consequences of our actions (responsibility), and too many of them just have the heros acting selfishly. Watchmen does this better than most (I loved the scene where Dan and Laurie rescue the people, and Dan's relationship with Rorschach), so I think I'm just reacting from a too-wide perspective right now.
Plus, I like role models every now and then. Not ones that don't struggle, but those who are actually grown up, and mature.
As for Ozy, I think it's an interesting idea, but the whole thing seems a bit too political (probably my perspective of the author).
no subject
Oh no, not unnecessary - but excessive. I know people who would like to go see it, but won't because of the violence.
the violence was presented for sensual enjoyment - slow motion on death.
You've seen Vogue, right? (If not, you should. It's *amazing*!)
Actually, one of the reasons I like Rorschach is because, unlike a sadist, he doesn't seem to "get off" or be stimulated by the pain he inflicts. It doesn't justify it, but I think he's not present as a complete sociopath.
*nods* In some ways he can be seen as the moral center, although a very Old Testament one - an eye for an eye and so forth.
but I've been innundated on the sites I visit with the kind of adulation about how "deep" the characters are
Ah. I understand completely. I think they're good characters, but they serve the story, rather than the other way around.
the comics (while canon ;-)
Ahahahahahahahaha! *wipes eyes* Anyway, David Fury is on my side! ;)
For me, a superhero film's power is primarily in how the heros can inspire us to similar acts of heroism, or accepting the consequences of our actions (responsibility), and too many of them just have the heros acting selfishly.
This is a good point. Although I'm not sure I'd classify Watchmen as a Superhero film - it's more warning about what could happen if people tried to be superheroes without any kind of regulations in place, and it (in many cases) blurs the lines between hero and villain completely.
Plus, I like role models every now and then. Not ones that don't struggle, but those who are actually grown up, and mature.
Oh I like them too. :)
no subject
I actually think Rorschach is the "most" heroic - though his heroism has a cost to his soul. I'm not entirely sure if I think the cost is worth it. Though I do think that Batman and Spider-man's idiotic refusal to kill, even in self defense, even to the point of reviving villains (CPR on the Joker) to prevent it, is a) borderline evil, as they consistently get away and kill hundreds more; b) laziness on the writer's part, since they only do it to ensure more conflict in the future without actually, you know, coming up with new stuff; c) stretching credulity. So I rather liked that all the heros in Watchmen weren't afraid of killing in self defense, at least.
Well, since I no longer care, I guess it doesn't matter whose side I'm on. Though I've thought about why I still think they're canon, and I think it's because I'm a huge Star Wars expanded universe fan, which includes television, film, comics, novels, video games, and RPGs in canon. So a new medium didn't throw me. But bad writing doesn't make me wanna continue subjecting myself to it.
I think Watchmen fits into the superhero genre - though consciously trying to break out of it, it remains trapped by the same issues, visual cues, and character types.
no subject
Well that's sort of the point. To quote someone with more eloquence than I am capable of right now: One of New York magazine's Best Videos of the year, and that's no lie. In Vogue, Luminosity punctures the violence of 300 by defiantly aestheticizing both the battlefield and the men on it. She conflates the battlefield and the dance floor, subjecting the men to a female and queer gaze and setting Madonna up as this world's reigning pagan goddess. An instant classic that went straight into vidding canon.
I actually think Rorschach is the "most" heroic - though his heroism has a cost to his soul. I'm not entirely sure if I think the cost is worth it.
*nods* And that ambiguity is what I find so fascinating. :)
Though I do think that Batman and Spider-man's idiotic refusal to kill, even in self defense, even to the point of reviving villains (CPR on the Joker) to prevent it, is a) borderline evil
Good point - Watchmen of course shows the flipside, but there's no doubt that letting murderers run free is very bad... and incredibly irresponsible.
I think it's because I'm a huge Star Wars expanded universe fan, which includes television, film, comics, novels, video games, and RPGs in canon.
That makes sense. I'm very strict when it comes to canon, so we've just got different points of view.
I think Watchmen fits into the superhero genre - though consciously trying to break out of it, it remains trapped by the same issues, visual cues, and character types.
In a glass, darkly? Anyway, I've really enjoyed our discussion - thank you lots for making me think. :)
ETA: By the way, have you seen The Tick? (On Amazon here, although rather expensive.) If not, then you SHOULD, especially if you're doing a big super-hero comparison essay thing. *nods* He's an absurdist spoof of comic book superheroes, yet absolutely wonderful and with a fabulous gallery of supporting characters. And his sidekick might be my favourite sidekick *ever*.
no subject
Hmmm, ambiguity. I actually just read a really good article about moral ambiguity which helped me understand why I'm generally frustrated with claims of complexity with ambiguity, and corresponding put downs of "black and white" morality as simplistic: Shades of Grey(havens). Not that you're wrong about Rorschach, it just made me think about the issue - and I found the article helpful.
Dunno about "through the glass" - Dan and Ozy's costumes are clearly ripped from the mid-90s Batman films, the origin story of Dr. Manhattan is basically the Hulk's, and (my favorite connection), Silk Specter II has the same mother/hero/footsteps issues as Black Canary (from the really fun Birds of Prey). I think it's more indebted to superheros than the creators are willing to admit - I wish they were just a bit more upfront about their intentions, instead of pretending to be completely original or realistic (at least, the artist Dave Gibbons is up front about it - Zach Snyder and Alan Moore much less so).
I have not seen the Tick - praps will check it out from the library, if it's available!
no subject
no subject
no subject
That seems to be the general consensus.
I actually just read a really good article
*bookmarks* I love intelligent writing, thank you!
I think it's more indebted to superheros than the creators are willing to admit - I wish they were just a bit more upfront about their intentions, instead of pretending to be completely original or realistic
I'm not familiar with any of the creators, I must admit, but you seem to have a point, absolutely. And, since I mentioned The Tick already, he is very, very deliberately ripped off - that's half the joke. :) See if you can find it somewhere (it might be going cheap on eBay), it's wonderful and very entertaining. Kinda like the anti-Watchmen!
no subject
The main creators I'm irritated with are Alan Moore, who thinks he's God's gift to nerds, and Zach Snyder, who thinks he's the most original filmmaker since D. W. Griffiths.