Watchmen

[HandsomeDevil]

As a fan of the graphic novel, I've been pretty excited to see it. It fulfilled all my nerd dreams, and then some, but then again, I'd watch traffic if Zack Snyder directed it.

My aside rant:

In the opening-night screening I went to, I saw several famillies with young (5-10 year old) children in tow. Apparently the 18A rating didn't set off any warning bells. How clueless can a person be? I thought to myself "Nice work, parent-of-the-year. Hope you pencilled in some time for questions about murder, rape, and Dr. M's generous endowment later on this evening".

[Darren Dirt]

In the opening-night screening I went to, I saw several famillies with young (5-10 year old) children in tow. Apparently the 18A rating didn't set off any warning bells.

Reading the sentence "2-minute slow-motion love scene that is borderline pornography" convinced me my 13 year old son can wait until DVD wherein the FFWD button will come in handy. I mean, the broken-bones-through-the-skin, and the boiling-fat-in-the-face I think he's seen worse on CSI, but the extremes Snyder apparently went to, a few might be a bit *too* unnecessary...

[Thorin]

In the opening-night screening I went to, I saw several famillies with young (5-10 year old) children in tow. Apparently the 18A rating didn't set off any warning bells.

Reading the sentence "2-minute slow-motion love scene that is borderline pornography" convinced me my 13 year old son can wait until DVD wherein the FFWD button will come in handy. I mean, the broken-bones-through-the-skin, and the boiling-fat-in-the-face I think he's seen worse on CSI, but the extremes Snyder apparently went to, a few might be a bit *too* unnecessary...

Your son's lucky.  Mine'll have to wait to watch 18A movies until he figures out how to properly fake ID, like I had to!

[Darren Dirt]

Well, I made the mistake of getting him the graphic novel in February before I heard about the final rating/contents, and now he is so totally wanting to see it "on the BIG screen" ... dang, my fault...

[Mr. Analog]

The movie is raw, honest and to the point.

I've read a lot of user reviews that found the movie confusing... it ain't. I've read a lot of reviews that compare it too the graphic novel and say it falls short. Not having read the graphic novel I will say two things; nerds will always prefer the source over a movie, the movie will always cut out some stuff you like.

I quite enjoyed this film on a number of levels, it has a pretty good story in itself, the acting is pretty good given the subject matter, the special effects are well done and not overplayed. In fact I really didn't find much to dislike about the film (well, the "humour" at the very end made me roll my eyes).

It's full of great characters that you will love, some thought provoking stuff in between about the nature of the American ego and maybe man's nature itself. Without gushing everywhere, I really liked this film and I look forward to finishing the graphic novel. I urge everyone to see this if you like action, humour, storytelling and a fresh, intriguing mythos to explore.

This is definitely one of those films you will kick yourself for not seeing in the theatre later.

[Darren Dirt]

Watchmen inspired Roger Ebert to teach you about quantum theory...
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/03/were_all_puppets_laurie_im_jus.html

[Darren Dirt]

Looks like there's a very detailed Wiki for all those who have only briefly skim-read the graphic novel (i.e. didn't take the time to read all the "book" excerpts etc.)

http://watchmen.wikia.com/wiki/Under_the_Hood
http://watchmen.wikia.com/wiki/Rorschach%27s_journal
etc.

[Tonnica]

I feel like a bit of a goofball as I didn't answer your earlier question directly Darren. The sex scene in question does visibly and clearly portray sex. It does not cut away or hide anything for the 20 seconds-or-so long scene and if someone were to walk in to a room they would think you were watching as a friend of mine put it "Skinimax". If he's already read the book he knows the scene is in there but on the big screen it's very explicit (read: Nite Owl II's butt you won't be able to un-see it).

Watchmen inspired Roger Ebert to teach you about quantum theory...
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/03/were_all_puppets_laurie_im_jus.html

This is an interesting article that's a bit stream-of-consciousness after Ebert's second viewing. He's reaching deeply in to the story and pulling out some interesting thoughts. I'm pretty convinced that Mr. Ebert is a member of the targeted audience of this movie simply due to his reaction of digging deeper.

I also find it hilarious and maybe a subtle statement that he's mostly talking about Manhattan but the images in the article are mostly of Rorschach. It seems to me that Manhattan has made him think via dialogue and Rorschach's image has stuck with him due to the scenery-chewing visual accuracy.

(Also not a dig at you Mr. Dirt but I appreciate that you're putting these articles in to new posts. It's easy for me to tell when you've posted something new because of the post count. )

[Darren Dirt]

(Also not a dig at you Mr. Dirt but I appreciate that you're putting these articles in to new posts. It's easy for me to tell when you've posted something new because of the post count. )

No dig taken, in fact clearly it's a compliment, and a hard-earned one at that... cuz after years of OCD forum spamming, it goes against my nature to (mostly) resist clicking the "modify" button

[Darren Dirt]

wow, considering his age and health issues, it's amazing that Roger Ebert manages to 'reply' to SO MANY of the comments on his blog. The following is among the lengthier, and deeper, of those replies, and its intelligence and sincerity is what moved me to comment on this unexpected gift Mr. Ebert provides to his readers...

By Eric M. Van on March 6, 2009 11:11 PM

Me: "[according to David Bohm's alternative to Quantum Mechanics] every particle in the universe is connected to and influences every other particle simultaneously."

Roger: "Connected to and influences," okay. But how?

I dreamed Roger Ebert asked me to explain nonlocality to him . . no wait, that really happened!

...the EPR thought experiment has actually been performed in the lab, by Alain Aspect and others. And now that nonlocality has been established as real, there is no longer any objection to some version of Bohm's theory being correct. And the physics community has embraced the notion; many top physicists are now adamant that QM will be replaced by some "hidden variable" theory (the generic term for Bohm-like theories, where you add something previously unrecognized to QM to get rid of the randomness and fix its other paradoxes and problems).

So, to answer the question: there may be a force which connects all particles instantaneously; it would have to be mediated by tachyons (particles that travel faster than the speed of light). Or perhaps space-time is nothing like what we think it is, and there is a layer of reality deeper than space-time in which widely separated points in space are actually next to each other. I actually think both of these things are true, to some extent. But whoever nails down the details will be a big-time physics hero (for one thing, I think there will be no progress in theoretical physics at all until this problem is solved, and that once it is solved, the floodgates open).


Ebert: Your writing has such clarity that I now understand the nature of my question, and I comprehend why no one can be expected to have the answer, although many are engaged in the search. I had an editor who said that if a journalist cannot explain something clearly, he doesn't understand it. You have taken that another step, by clearly explaining what it is that no one understands.

I have learned so much from these comments. One thing I learned is that QM existed in the first place as a series of mathematical equations. Now you tell me that the EPR thought experiment has been performed in the lab. I believe I read about that in the NYTimes.

I suppose it was too much to expect the universe to be Newtonian right down to the bottom, under all those turtles. Below things like atoms and their parts, something else lurks, and if the lurkers are what somehow constitutes matter , then they must not themselves be matter. What, then, is left but space and time--which, neither one being matter, do not number "location" among their attributes? So to describe them as being connected or not being connected is beside the point. Even though it seems they may be.

It works for me as an idea. A rather beautiful one. I am still completely in the dark, but now I have something to think about, to pass the time.

300+ comments, most of them thought-provoking and extremely non-rude, in response to a movie critic's review of a "thinking" comic book movie... 2009 is looking to be a great, challenging, and overall progressive and positive year!

[Lazybones]

For those that can't get out to the theater and want some thing more passive than reading a book you might want to checkout the motion comic
http://www.watchmencomicmovie.com/watchmen-motion-comics-episodes.php

I am just about done it. It is done very well. Sort of like a hybrid between an audio book, comic and a cartoon.

[Thorin]

Reading the sentence "2-minute slow-motion love scene that is borderline pornography" convinced me my 13 year old son can wait until DVD wherein the FFWD button will come in handy. I mean, the broken-bones-through-the-skin, and the boiling-fat-in-the-face I think he's seen worse on CSI, but the extremes Snyder apparently went to, a few might be a bit *too* unnecessary...

Having seen the movie now, I have to say the various attempts at copulation isn't what would keep me from letting my child see the movie.  Whoever compared that one successful copulation to nearly porn obviously hasn't been on the internet long enough to see what porn really looks like.

For me, it's the violent spurts in the movie, especially when people are simply exploded or meat-cleaver'd in the head.  That's something that will give younger kids (8-13ish) nightmares and older kids (14ish+) ideas of what to imitate when adults aren't around.  Throw in that the violent spurts are separated by long "character/plot-building" segments that may well bore the kids, and all they'll remember is when the bad guys explode from the inside out and their bloody skeletal remains are stuck to the ceiling.

Hell, I'd much rather that kids see and learn how to have sex than that they see and learn how to properly meat-cleaver someone in the head.

[Mr. Analog]

I don't think it's a film for children anyway, I believe they'd be bored to tears not understanding what's going on or how everything's related.

Subtlety is not for kids, this movie is all about subtlety clenched in a fist.

[Darren Dirt]

I don't think it's a film for children anyway, I believe they'd be bored to tears not understanding what's going on or how everything's related.

Subtlety is not for kids, this movie is all about subtlety clenched in a fist.

My son absolutely loved the graphic novel... Last week he and I were "fighting" over who gets to re-read it first but yeah, I presume most "normal" kids who aren't familiar with character-driven "action" movies will not enjoy it. ...of course, I found out last night that most of his friends have already seen it (!) and some even did it the on-the-internets way    So am I sheltering my son too much? Will it be pointless just waiting for the DVD? ...unsure... Saturday matinee anyone? So I can judge for myself?

[Thorin]

I found out last night that most of his friends have already seen it (!) and some even did it the on-the-internets way    So am I sheltering my son too much?

While attempting not to sound like an over-obsessive judgemental parent, I would suggest the following questions for these friends' parents:

1. My son says your child has seen this 18A movie.  Is that true, or is my son simply trying to manipulate me into letting him go?  (for those that supposedly saw it on the Internet) Did you know that your child claims to have watched it on the Internet?

2. Have you seen this movie yourself?

3. Are you okay with exposing your child to the following concepts or graphic images:
a. (concept) Women are nothing but whores, men are nothing but filth
b. (concept) Men will abduct children, kill them, and feed them to their dogs
c. (graphic image) Other men will avenge said children by meat-cleavering the Bad Men in the head repeatedly
d. (concept) Men will beat women up and then rape them whenever they feel like, and laugh about it
e. (graphic image) This is what a beaten-up woman about to get raped looks like: submissive
f. (graphic image) Soldiers with their hands in the air should be burned alive for the fun of it
g. (concept) Highly pregnant women demanding help from the man that impregnated them should be shoved aside
h. (graphic image) See g. -> He kills her when she gets pushy about demanding that he stick around
etc

4. Does your child understand the movie's concept and the many intricate moralities at play?

Research has shown that young kids' brains work in such a way that a lot of what they experience lays the foundation for how they will think and moralize as adults.  Young kids' brains soak everything in, and adapt and change to the stimulus being entered.  This adapting and changing decreases around age 8 (7 to 9), and picks up again at the onset of puberty.

When a child watches a movie like Watchmen and then discusses it at length with a caring parent or other adult, the child garners a lot of information, much of it affecting how they think and how they moralize.  When a child does not discuss the movie with adults, they miss out on most of the morality lessons as they don't know to look for them.  Instead, they watch what happens in the movie and think this is normal behaviour - after all, the adults in the movie are doing it, and the adults in the theater seem excited and happy when watching it.  When these children become adults they may seem callous based on the morals they picked up during childhood.  The same argument is made against children watching porn movies.

So to return to your question about friends who claim to have seen it, I would surmise that:
a. Many friends are lying about having seen it (it's junior high, they gotta look cool!),
b. Some friends have parents that don't care about/have time for instilling their children's moral compass,
c. Some friends have parents that are completely unaware or uncaring about their child's internet activities, and
d. One or a few have parents that do care, let their child see the movie, and then discussed the concepts and morality lessons in the movie

Kids are able to think critically, but it's hard and kids on the whole prefer to do things that they find easy unless the hard thing has some kind of reward (generally social status or money or feel-good vibes, in that order).  Thus if we want them to think critically we have to encourage it as adults.  And many adults just don't bother because they're too busy with their own lives.