The Watchmen

The nudity toes into the character; something in the novel not depicted in the film is Manhattan's starting out wearing a little costume (black briefs, and a ridiculous little helmet with a 50's atom graphic on it); he rejects the helmet and graphic (which immediately precedes what they did show in the film; his burning the hydrogen atom symbol into his own forehead, which he finds more appropriate) and eventually dispenses with the clothing since he's lost any sense of modesty (not being human, any more, what need of it?)

Actually, they *did* sort of cover the business with the briefs; in the Vietnam Ride of the Valkyries sequence he's wearing them, and in one or two other places, too.

Anyway, it's not gratuitous nudity. It's motivated by the character's persona and his ongoing loss of contact with his human past, even if that doesn't come through very well in the movie.

Even though the genitalia is there, it's kind of blurry and indistinct compared to the rest of him, most of the time. At least, that was my wife's complaint.
 
Sad Max said:
The nudity toes into the character; something in the novel not depicted in the film is Manhattan's starting out wearing a little costume (black briefs, and a ridiculous little helmet with a 50's atom graphic on it); he rejects the helmet and graphic (which immediately precedes what they did show in the film; his burning the hydrogen atom symbol into his own forehead, which he finds more appropriate) and eventually dispenses with the clothing since he's lost any sense of modesty (not being human, any more, what need of it?)

Actually, they *did* sort of cover the business with the briefs; in the Vietnam Ride of the Valkyries sequence he's wearing them, and in one or two other places, too.

Anyway, it's not gratuitous nudity. It's motivated by the character's persona and his ongoing loss of contact with his human past, even if that doesn't come through very well in the movie.

Even though the genitalia is there, it's kind of blurry and indistinct compared to the rest of him, most of the time. At least, that was my wife's complaint.
Click to expand...

But it's just human nature to be distracted by such things. It does not contribute anything to the story and just detracts from the main focus of the scene, even if there is an explanation for it (which was not covered in the film).
 
The mistake was not giving any sort of clue, in the film. If you know that little bit about the character, it immediately stops being gratuitous and distracting and becomes a dimension to the person being depicted.
 
Sad Max said:
it immediately stops being gratuitous and distracting
Click to expand...

It would be distracting no matter what. Humans are just wired that way. It would be like have a scene where some woman with double D breasts is walking around topless in the background. It could be perfectly plausible depending on the location, but I guarantee if you asked any guy what the scene was about, they'd say "I don't know, I was staring at the huge knockers in the background!"
 
Well...neither my wife nor I found it distracting; I had read the book while she hadn't.

It's an individual thing. Some people find nudity weird/unusual/distracting, while some don't. I guess I'm in the latter category; I know what the nude human body looks like and it's a non-issue.
 
Sad Max said:
Actually, they *did* sort of cover the business with the briefs; in the Vietnam Ride of the Valkyries sequence he's wearing them, and in one or two other places, too.
Click to expand...

Having not seen the film yet (probably tomorrow), I don't know if this comes off, but in the graphic novel, the amount of clothing Dr. Manhattan wears decreases steadily over the years, from a full suit when he's first introduced to the public, through a couple of intermediate steps, to the full nudity in 1985. I've always taken this as a metaphor for his increasing "loss of contact with his human past," as Sad Max put it (quite well :) ).
 
Batutta said:
It would be distracting no matter what. Humans are just wired that way. It would be like have a scene where some woman with double D breasts is walking around topless in the background. It could be perfectly plausible depending on the location, but I guarantee if you asked any guy what the scene was about, they'd say "I don't know, I was staring at the huge knockers in the background!"
Click to expand...

In all seriousness, I wouldnt be distracted by huge breasts in the background. I'd see them, note them, and move on with my life. The DVD is for pausing and zooming. :beer:

As for Manhattan's junk, I knew it was going to be there, the first scene that actually had him full frontal, I saw it, cringed a little, and then it never bothered me again.

I guess it is just an individual thing.
 
So in his higher evolved state he still hooks up threesomes for the woman he loves, doesn't understand why it creeps her out, still focuses on several tasks at the same time, and yet suffers various short-term memory as it relates to the woman he loves, and yet doesn't love, but then loves again.

Whatever.

I had no problem with the swinging blue monster... but in one scene it swung a little much, and there's NO WAY that every pair of eyes in the theater was NOT fixed on his hoo-hoo in that scene. (I wonder who's job it was to determine the amount of sway? "Bob, you moron, for the last time. Look at me... WATCH! See... his junk wouldn't move that much.")
 
Check out the credits. Look for Dr. Manhattan Junk T.D.

I thought the wacky-multiple-Manhattans-in-bed scene was effective at conveying that he's really losing touch with what she wants, and sort of taking random stabs at ways to please her. That fact that he's so far off and gets it so wrong is symptomatic of his progressive loss of human perspective. As far as love goes (like fear, anger, or any other recognizable human emotion), he's forgetting what it is.

I suspect this is a very American sort of response: we have a collective fixation on naughty bits and nudity that's kind of childish compared to what a lot of other cultures would notice. I mean, how do any of us navigate a locker room?
 
Last edited:
So why does he then get it again... and decide to save the world... for love, after seeing a few tears? (It ends with you crying?) I felt like the movie was a conglomeration of plot devices that were floating along down a stream, but not really connected... just passing by in order.

And so the comedian wants to bang his own daughter? (just wondering)

Also... that multiple "detached" bedroom scene has been done to death... that must be a common fantasy, to please a woman without trying? It reminded me of that stupid S. King movie "Lawnmower Man"...
 
MattinSTL said:
So why does he then get it again... and decide to save the world... for love, after seeing a few tears? (It ends with you crying?) I felt like the movie was a conglomeration of plot devices that were floating along down a stream, but not really connected... just passing by in order.

And so the comedian wants to bang his own daughter? (just wondering)
Click to expand...

It wasn't so much love as him finding out that Blake is Laurie's father, which makes him realize "miracles" are possible, and that humanity shouldn't be condemned for all its bad when things like Laurie's birth are possible.

And no, Blake didn't want to have sex with Laurie, well, maybe he did, who knows really. He just knew she was his daughter and underneath all his cynicism and jokes, just wanted to know her, as a father.
 
Ezekiel667 said:
It wasn't so much love as him finding out that Blake is Laurie's father, which makes him realize "miracles" are possible, and that humanity shouldn't be condemned for all its bad when things like Laurie's birth are possible.

And no, Blake didn't want to have sex with Laurie, well, maybe he did, who knows really. He just knew she was his daughter and underneath all his cynicism and jokes, just wanted to know her, as a father.
Click to expand...


About Dr. Manhattan and Laurie... dude that's got to be the weakest plot point ever... especially since we're supposed to believe this guy is of God-like intellect... the concept of one single good thing coming out of apparently chaotic circumstances is the basis for a lot of science... and it shouldn't take a genius to grasp that it's possible that a beautiful woman, raped by a handsome man, may have a beautiful daughter... so... hmm...

I was also slightly befuddled by some of the actions of the other characters... such as Blake's pumping shells into the protesting crowd... sure they only show the one guy get hit in the back with a gas cannister... but before that they show a huge crowd, the comedian jumps down, and starts jacking shells into the crowd... and if he wasn't gunning people down then I guess that flower stuck in the end of the guns that fired wasn't gunning people down either?

It's just stuff like that... there were just too many contradictions and conflicting logic... and it started to feel like there were several "agenda" type of ideas... goofy stuff like heroes that rape other heroes... etc. etc... I love the idea of flawed heroes... but it just didn't work for me.

I just thought that in that context... in that world... you better have some pretty tight story telling with a clear story arc... and I just didn't feel it.
 
Last edited:
BryantStanton said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDDHHrt6l4w

Don't know if anyone else posted this yet, couldn't recall and didn't feel like searching through 22 pages.
Click to expand...

Yep...








noob.jpg_thumb.jpg
 
Really?

Christ man I'm not scouring 22 pages before posting a link that people can feel free to ignore. And I knew for sure it wasn't in any of the most recent pages.

Maybe my intense hatred for that overused photo prompted me to reply, but jesus man, it seems a lot more "noobish" and space wasting for you to write "yep" and then post that picture than me accidentally double posting a link.
 
Last edited:
Finally got to this today, and really enjoyed it.

This is, believe it or not, my first Zach Snyder movie, so I can't really comment on his rep as a "visionary," but I have to say there's one thing he did (or rather didn't do) in this that I really appreciated--he didn't edit the action sequences in ADD-Vision like so many people want to these days. As I said to my wife on the way out, it's nice to actually be able to see who's kicking whose ass. :D

There were also a lot of little touches that really made the movie for me. Stuff like the Silk Spectre (I) pinups in Blake's apartment at the beginning, or the Muzak playing in the background of Veidt's meeting with Lee Iacocca (a particularly syrupy rendition of "Everybody Wants to Rule the World"). Speaking of the Iacocca meeting, and some of the other additions (like the McLaughlin Group bit, or adding "99 Luftballons" to the soundtrack, or stuff like that), I thought they helped to sell the 80's vibe in a way that the graphic novel really didn't need to because it was still the 80's when it came out. (Although I have to admit that I missed some of the "celebrity cameos" that I saw listed i n the credits, like Dick Cavett and Mick Jagger...) Similarly, when I first saw the New York they'd built for the movie, and the cars they'd chosen, I was a little surprised that they were using "real" 80's cars rather than the electric cars of the graphic novel, but again, it helps sell the 80's setting, and I think there's another reason, too, but I'll get into that a bit later...

I thought all the casting was well done, particularly (and this is a totally minor role to be bring up, but it was one of those "Is that really--?" moments) Matt "Max Headroom" Frewer as Moloch.

As for the end, and the changes... well, I may as well go with the SPOILER WARNING for both the movie and the graphic novel, but... I don't see anyway they could have made the graphic novel ending work in the movie. The graphic novel had more time, and more opportunities, to set up Veidt's "monster" and all the people "kidnapped" to help create it and its backstory. And even then, quite frankly, it comes across as surprisingly comic-booky in a comic book that is trying desperately not to be comic-booky, to show more "real" people behind the masks (hah, if this had been the late 90's, there could have been a VH-1 show called "Behind the Masks" :D ). The movie's ending, in a way, actually takes one of the graphic novel's ideas--that Doctor Manhattan is capable of creating amazing technology (like the aforementioned electric cars that aren't in the movie)--and skews it in another direction. There is one problem I have with it, though--it seems a little too much like it was crafted to fit the idea that Manhattan would leave Earth anyway. Yeah, Veidt was positive that the IF Subtractor would work, but that's kind of a dumb mistake for the "smartest man in the world" (even in the graphic novel, where he at least admits, "I really wasn't sure that would work"). Veidt's use of Manhattan's energy signature ensures that the Doctor and his CGJ have no place on Earth, and I hate to think what would have become of Adrian if Doc hadn't decided to switch galaxies...

All in all, I thought it was a damn good interpretation of the source material, mostly faithful in spirit when it couldn't be otherwise.
 
Um, that link ROCKS... big time. Give that guy his props for a great job! :)

About the little touches like muzak "everybody wants to rule the world"... to me those moments felt like VH1 breaks from the rest of the movie. I enjoyed the songs, but in those moments I felt the movie took a back-seat to the music. Showing a group of powerful men while playing "everybody wants to rule the world" hit me with the same subtlety as showing guys on a stake out and playing Hall and Oats "private eyes".


Spring (2007) I had a film friend who talked non-stop about Watchmen... and so I also anticipated this for the last 2 years.

I hate to jump into a discussion of fans talking about a movie for fans... but I can't wait to see what they do with the new Star Trek (and Terminator)... and I'm going to be honest then too.

So... is this a one-time deal? They killed off what was BY FAR the two most interesting characters. I could have watched an entire movie about Rorschach. (Even the flashback moments with Dr. M and Blake had me wishing that the movie had more time on that... THAT'S the movie I want to see.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top