|
Post by bak on Aug 9, 2007 17:32:52 GMT -5
I loved it! The super-babes are super-hott! And fucking Rorscach, what a card! The Comedian's got nothing on that clown! Who knew the Oz-man was behind it all? For reals, I kept expecting The Batman to freaking pop up (and I gotta admit, I'm a little disappointed! The old fruitcake woulda fit right into this gem, haw haw!) Dr. Manhattan was a serious mind-blower, too! I mean, it's like I was reading the freaking Camus there for a while (or some shit!) Heavy! That monster was balls-deep, tho', fuckin' A. Way to bring the peace, OZ-MAN!! I only gots one question: When the sequel?
|
|
|
Post by bryanstone on Aug 9, 2007 18:34:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bak on Aug 10, 2007 9:22:11 GMT -5
OK, that was an edited post because at first I was laying into everything I disliked about it, then started thinking, maybe I was reading this book expecting not to like it. Was I just looking for negative elements to criticize? Then I realized that Moore's message is actually "the end justify the means" (because he claims that creating monsters with which to manipulate a populace through fear is bad but it's just how the world works, whether you like it or not) which is the sociopolitical reinforcement of saying, "Women- can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em". The narrative appears to be building towards something, then...the monster from the id? No dice. Other than that, I think the art is ugly and the women look like dudes in drag. Dr. Manhattan's quasi-philosophical meanderings are ridiculous, and his 180 degree change of heart is totally unbelievable; we're supposed to accept that he suddenly sympathizes with Laurie, but it makes absolutely no sense for him to suddenly change his mind about the value of human life at that point in the story. How long have these two been together? There are some good things going for it. I thought Rorshach was an interesting character (though snuffing him out with a falling piano would have made more sense). The pirate story (and its missing author) subplot was decent and the juxtaposition of narratives works well. I liked the fact that Nixon was still president. We should only be so lucky today.
|
|
|
Post by bak on Aug 11, 2007 15:48:12 GMT -5
P.S. I STILL LOVE YOU GUYS, THOUGH!!!
|
|
|
Post by srbissette on Aug 11, 2007 19:26:50 GMT -5
NOW you've read the book -- NOW your opinion counts for something, amigo! Let's dance.
The ending to WATCHMEN always -- ah, sucked. I couldn't get past the OUTER LIMITS lift (and from one of the show's best episodes, "Architects of Fear," which terrified me as a lad of eight when it was first broadcast), which Alan maintains he'd never seen (and I believe him), the rest was anticlimactic; it's a terrific buildup, though, and the real meat of the series for me was their playing with the form (the pirate comic layering works best of all). It works better as a formal exercise than a dramatic narrative work; still, what Alan and Dave accomplished en route indeed changed the landscape of comics forever.
As with many worthy books/movies/comics/operas, getting there was all the fun... the end was a major letdown. I recall Keith Giffen tearing into the finale of WATCHMEN with glee, while others danced around that sense of disappointment; still, there's so much good and that does work in WATCHMEN (hence my recommendation that you read it), it still bears up to repeated readings for me. V FOR VENDETTA is Alan's first masterpiece, to my mind, and still holds up -- give that a try, if you haven't, Bak.
|
|
|
Post by bak on Aug 11, 2007 21:01:42 GMT -5
I haven't read V for Vendetta, that's one I've actually been meaning to read and will get after it asap. I can definitely see how Watchmen took the genre to another level, especially because I'm at least familiar with the conventions of what the book accomplished/how it impacted comics after its appearance in the market. Was it for the best? I don't know. When all is said and done, it simply is what it is. The interesting thing is that I went into reading Watchmen knowing that a movie version is in the works, which did affect my reading especially because I frequently found myself thinking that it might could make a decent movie.
|
|
|
Post by srbissette on Aug 12, 2007 14:07:25 GMT -5
First off, what I consider worthwhile reading/spinning/watching may not be 'great' or 'awesome' (much abused terms, mind you), but just something original with something of merit unique to that creation, "good" or "bad." I looooove Mario Bava's films and Sergio Leone's westerns, though both men's works were reviled in their lifetimes; Bava's films are more visually imaginative than 80% of all cinema, even if he did labor in the minepits of cinematic fringe genres (ghost films, giallo, pepla, etc.). The imagery, use of color, plasticity of cinema, etc. in a Bava film rarely fails to intoxicate me, though the scripts are drivel much of the time. So, I'm no barometer of traditional mores of 'quality', amigo, and in fact prefer the fringe and outsider creators to the norm every time.
I've shown many a film to CCSers because it had something unique to share, even if the film itself is ultimately not "great" (or even, in the case of Rene Cardona's SANTA CLAUS or the all-parakeet feast BILL & COO, outright blew shaved monkey balls by any traditional yardstick of critical assessment).
Hence, WATCHMAN isn't my fave, and wasn't touted by me here to you as a mindblower -- just a good and indeed essential read, for what IS good about it.
In terms of its genre and Alan's collaborative efforts, I still think MARVELMAN/MIRACLEMAN is the superior work -- but WATCHMEN is in print and easily accessible, MARVELMAN/MIRACLEMAN is not. Sigh.
Anyhoot, that said, "Was it for the best? I don't know." pretty much sums up ALAN MOORE's view of his own brainchild, Bak, and that's a conversation we'll be having in class, big-time, I hope. Alan felt WATCHMEN (and DARK KNIGHT) instead of elevating the form spawned the inundation of shit that followed -- the 'dark heroes' and Image Comics of the '90s. Thus, Alan tried to rework the magic (as he saw/sees it) via '1963' and, on the far grander scale, the entire ABC line, hoping to redress the wrongs he felt he'd committed via WATCHMEN and push mainstream comics in a new direction. I think it's a bit of a folly; Alan's collaborative works FROM HELL and LOST GIRLS have done far more to offset WATCHMEN, in my estimation, along with his other creations since.
Alas, that which DOES work in WATCHMEN likely WOULDN'T make it to a movie, if you think about it. The components of WATCHMEN that are most unique, inventive and imaginative only work in comics -- they won't translate to cinema, really, and especially if the director of '300' and the DAWN OF THE DEAD remake (a serviceable entertainment that doesn't hold a candle to Romero's original 1978 film) is the man at the helm. Terry Gilliam was once associated with WATCHMEN development, but walked away after deciding the graphic novel simply wouldn't translate to a two-hour movie -- clearly, it would make a compelling HBO mini-series, though, and TV is about ready for it content-wise.
|
|
|
Post by bak on Aug 14, 2007 14:23:16 GMT -5
|
|