Viewed Watchmen again, on DVD by AURaptor

America loves a winner!

Man, what a dark, dark movie.

Liked it, for the most part, as it was well done, but still....

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 2, 2010 11:43 AM

I didn't like how they changed it from the comic book. In the comic book, they take the comparison to Alexander the Great much farther, and he turns out to be yet another would-be conqueror who thinks he's bringing peace and enlightenment to an uncivilized world, and actually just wants to be in charge and play with people's lives.

Of course, I also realized recently I don't like the comic book, either. According to Alan Moore himself, Nite Owl, Silk Spectre, and Dr. Manhattan were supposed to be more sympathetic than Rorschach, and the audience was supposed to take away that the three stooges made the right choice to just bend over for the world's worst authoritarian. Screw you Alan Moore.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 2, 2010 5:39 PM

America loves a winner!

Having no idea what Watchmen was even about before the movie, I couldn't get upset at any character variations which showed up on screen. Rarely does a character or set of characters make the cross over from print to small/ big screen. ( But that's for another thread, or several. )

But the idea of making Rorschach the villain is just plain wrong. For all the bad that he was, I ended up finding him to be the most true and honest 'hero' of the bunch. Warped, disturbed, but truly held onto his principles. Not the sort of character I generally pull for, but by the end of the movie, he was the one I was most impressed with, out of all the 'heroes'.

As a change of pace, I followed Watchmen up w/ Monsters vs Aliens.

I guess 'cause of Ironman 2, it's sort of a heroes vs villains weekend on the home theatre.

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 2, 2010 6:02 PM

SHINYGOODGUY

I agree with you about Rorschach. By the end of the movie (and upon 2d viewing) I truly understood his decision at the end. He died for what he believed in. That, I think was true to his character (within the movie). I never read the graphic novel and don't intend to (some things are better left alone).

Suffice it to say I really enjoyed the movie and the storytelling approach that was taken. There were some very minor flaws for me (at times it was a bit melodramatic - such as with "Ozzie's" character) but for the most part it was good solid movie that worked on most levels. My fav characters was Rorschach and The Comedian - as they marched to a different drum; but the comic book fan in me also admired the traditional heros in Nite Owl and Silk Spectre. It's the romantic in me.

SGG

Tawabawho?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 2, 2010 6:23 PM

Exactly! And that's how most of the fanbase feels. Certainly, it's how I felt about it, even though I do think Rorschach has his flaws and is kind of like a schizophrenic homeless batman.

But according to what I read at tvtropes about "Misaimed fandom" and "Ensemble Darkhorse" Alan Moore intended for Rorschach to be unsympathetic, implying that he deserved his death for being so uncompromising (and socially uncomforming).

I was annoyed by the Silk Spectre II, she seemed pretty worthless most of the time. Clearly the token female.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2010 3:27 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

I was annoyed by the Silk Spectre II, she seemed pretty worthless most of the time. Clearly the token female.

While easy on the eyes, Silk Spectre came off as fairly superficial. I mean, what I got from the movie was that her part in all this wasn't out of any sense of justice or to right the wrongs, but simply because it was what mommy told her to do. To "carry on the family tradition". Quite a contrast to Rorschach, who was fully consumed w/ avenging the wronged and making the guilty pay. REALLY pay.

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2010 4:03 AM

CLJOHNSTON108

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Having no idea what Watchmen was even about before the movie...

Do yourself a favor and pick up the graphic novel. Read it with very good lighting, and take the time to pore over all the amazing detail in each panel, especially in the background.
Also read every word in the articles at the end of each chapter, as there's a lot of foreshadowing and insightful details.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2010 4:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

I was annoyed by the Silk Spectre II, she seemed pretty worthless most of the time. Clearly the token female.

While easy on the eyes, Silk Spectre came off as fairly superficial. I mean, what I got from the movie was that her part in all this wasn't out of any sense of justice or to right the wrongs, but simply because it was what mommy told her to do. To "carry on the family tradition". Quite a contrast to Rorschach, who was fully consumed w/ avenging the wronged and making the guilty pay. REALLY pay.

And not just her role in the story enabling Ozymandrius' bullshit, which makes me absolutely DESPISE her, Nite Owl, and Dr. Manhattan. She's also a very shallow character. Her backstory is lacking, as you noted (though Nite Owl's is as well), and story-wise she also appears to exist only to have sex with Alan Moore's two protagonists. When faced with what Ozymandrius has done, she comes off as a COMPLETE BIMBO.

The comic book is actually quite a bit misogynistic, from the Comedian killing his asian-babymomma to... Well, the Comedian again, and the rape of the first Silk Spectre, which we come to understand she WANTED AND ENJOYED. And then Silk Spectre II, who is an utterly irredeemable waste of ink.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2010 7:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

But the idea of making Rorschach the villain is just plain wrong.

Where'd you get the idea that he was, or they were trying to present him as such? That totally flies in the face of the film itself. He was the one guy who refused to compromise his ideals.

You're the first person I've ever seen even make such a comment.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2010 7:30 AM

Actually, I was the first person who said it, and I said it because Alan Moore has gone on record to indicate that he regrets that Rorschach has such a fan following, and that Rorschach was meant to be an unsympathetic character. I'm trying to find a damn cite and source for it, it's not coming up, but apparently it was said SOMEWHERE because the Watchmen fan-community refers to it endlessly.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2010 8:41 AM

OPPYH

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Actually, I was the first person who said it, and I said it because Alan Moore has gone on record to indicate that he regrets that Rorschach has such a fan following, and that Rorschach was meant to be an unsympathetic character. I'm trying to find a damn cite and source for it, it's not coming up, but apparently it was said SOMEWHERE because the Watchmen fan-community refers to it endlessly.

Yes, but Alan Moore defies anything someone agrees with. If he wrote it, and too many people fall in love with it to the point of commerciality, he will loathe it. He's an odd bird that one.

-------------------------------------------------

70's TV FOREVER

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2010 9:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Actually, I was the first person who said it, and I said it because Alan Moore has gone on record to indicate that he regrets that Rorschach has such a fan following, and that Rorschach was meant to be an unsympathetic character. I'm trying to find a damn cite and source for it, it's not coming up, but apparently it was said SOMEWHERE because the Watchmen fan-community refers to it endlessly.

Well, I can see that. The character was Moore's way of commenting on the underlying semi-fascist attitudes associated with vigilante characters, primarily Batman in this case. But I still don't think Moore ever considered him a villain - just an anti-hero.

And, sometimes people do lock onto, and become fans of something for reasons other than what the character intended. It's a bit like - the number of Fight Club fans who missed the point of the movie, and really think it is just about how manly it is to fight.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2010 9:42 AM

Quote:
Yes, but Alan Moore defies anything someone agrees with. If he wrote it, and too many people fall in love with it to the point of commerciality, he will loathe it. He's an odd bird that one.

But look at the evidence: despite being the only honest character with any integrity in the end, Rorschach is written, in the COMIC, on a shallow level as a repulsive, bad smelling, and ugly-looking character under the mask. On the deeper level, he was written as a murderous sociopath who disliked and didn't trust most everyone, who thought everyone needed to be punished and upheld to his very strict moral code, and he has a piss-poor freudian excuse to account for it.

He really wasn't supposed to be sympathetic.

But to suggest that he DESERVED to die because of not going along with Ozymandrius? Perhaps you're right SM, perhaps Moore didn't intend Rorschach to be THE Villain, and certainly he was commenting on and denouncing the authoritarian ways of Rorschach.

But much like Tyler Durden (who is a douche), Rorschach is an authoritarian anarchist. He is in direct opposition to fascism. Fascism, represented by Ozymandrius, wins. That is some nasty values dissonance. Given a world where no character is really that admirable, I'm going to grab on to the one character who does TRY to do the right thing, even if his methods are suspect.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2010 12:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Given a world where no character is really that admirable, I'm going to grab on to the one character who does TRY to do the right thing, even if his methods are suspect.

Hmmm, given the characters in question.... which one IS that then? Ozzy or Rorschach?

Both truly believed they were trying to do the right thing..... Both used unsavory methods..... (this is why I love Watchmen, btw).

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2010 12:33 PM

Rorschach's kill total is lower. ._. But good point.

I still have to go with Ozzy for the villain, at least for my interpretation. Creating a world of peace based on the bodies of half the world's population and a lie? I mean, that's off the OMFGWTF chart. Ozzy's a villain, I don't think there can be any doubt about it. Just because he's the well-intentioned extremist type doesn't change that.

So, then, is Rorschach right to expose it, even if it'll destroy the illusion of peace?

...I say yes, because chances are good it'll unite the entire world against Ozymandrius and his corporation.

Which might have been Ozymandrius' plan all along. :o

Select to view spoiler:

Ever heard of Code Geass and Lelouch? Ow, my mind has been BLOWN. :O

But even if that was the case for Ozymandrius, he's still a bastard for what he did. Always, always raises the question of whether the end justifies the means.

And so Rorschach is still right, even if it DOES play into a possible Ozzy plan B.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2010 12:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Rorschach's kill total is lower. ._. But good point.

I still have to go with Ozzy for the villain, at least for my interpretation. Creating a world of peace based on the bodies of half the world's population and a lie? I mean, that's off the OMFGWTF chart. Ozzy's a villain, I don't think there can be any doubt about it. Just because he's the well-intentioned extremist type doesn't change that.

I would be inclined to agree - though your off on scale. It was hardly half the world - just one city.

And look at the choice he was facing. He wasn't dealing with street thugs like Rorshach, where maintaining that ultra-strict moral code is easy, because it's black and white - he was fighting nuclear holocaust.

Trading one city for the whole world, while a brutal choice, seems like the correct one to me. Good of the many, over the needs of the (relative) few and all. If the end is the preservation of all life, can the means be "bad"?

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2010 12:50 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

But the idea of making Rorschach the villain is just plain wrong.

Where'd you get the idea that he was, or they were trying to present him as such? That totally flies in the face of the film itself. He was the one guy who refused to compromise his ideals.

You're the first person I've ever seen even make such a comment.

As noted, I got it from Byte's remark -

But according to what I read at tvtropes about "Misaimed fandom" and "Ensemble Darkhorse" Alan Moore intended for Rorschach to be unsympathetic, implying that he deserved his death for being so uncompromising (and socially uncomforming).

Sorta sounds like a bad guy to me. Maybe not THE villain, but still.... I wasn't the 1st person to make that comment (yeah, I know you qualified it with " I've ever seen ".)

It's interesting how you changed your tone, after things were cleared up.

I had already said that I hadn't read the graphic novel , and that all I knew of the Watchmen 'verse was from watching the movie itself.

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2010 1:13 PM

SM: You're right, it was only New York. Weird, why did I think it was the whole world? And why did the synthetic psychic "alien" limit the attack?

You know, I think I like the movie a little better than before. Even though it doesn't as overtly imply that deep down it's really just a power grab for Ozzy, that element could still be there if you squint. And in the movie, not only does Ozymandrius point the finger somewhere else, but multiple major cities in every country get torched, which actually works much better for my argument.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2010 2:41 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Yanno, that's what drew me to be sympathetic to Rorschach despite being in serious disagreement with him philosophically.

He's portrayed as a chump for having moral standards, and as a complete nutter for sticking to them no matter how tough that gets...

Yeah, I can sympathize, and while I disagree with him fundamentally on most of his viewpoints, but not quite all of them.

Quote:
You see, Doctor, God didn't kill that little girl. Fate didn't butcher her and destiny didn't feed her to those dogs. If God saw what any of us did that night he didn't seem to mind. From then on I knew... God doesn't make the world this way. We do.
-Rorschach

As for Ozzy, he's just another would be tyrant, using fear, threats and lies to get people to listen to him, do his bidding, it's the same old story...

But in the movie, he's far worse - he knows WHY the world is at the brink, the "fear of not having enough", and so with Manhattans assistance, he manages to produce renewable power (which was the design of those reactors, which was WHY Manhattan was helping him, he just corrupted it for his own purpose), but instead of offering it to all and sundry, removing the primary reason for the imminent conflict, instead he uses it destructively, to create more fear, more mass psychosis, in hopes of a world grasped within *HIS* fist, cause he thinks no one else qualified to run it - you did notice what company was in charge of the reconstruction efforts, right ?

And people thought The Comedian was a monster...

You almost feel sorry for the old bastard when he begins to come to truly understand how he's played a part in making the world so fucked up.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HeelRealization

Rorschach was undergoing some of that towards the end too, I posted a rather longish bit about that but can't find it right now, but the realization that he and his nakama were in fact villains would be, and was, psychologically catastrophic to him, at that moment he had no fear of death because he felt it was the only atonement he could make.

Select to view spoiler:

As for Code Geass, which I think you particularly would enjoy watching in full, Byte - my primary reaction to the fruition of that plot was "what an idiot" cause he makes the same damned mistake Robespierre did, skimming the top instead of addressing the root causes and problems which make people so screwed up it produces the kind of sociopaths who rise to power, and unthinking reactionaries who are what give them that power in the first place.

Watchmen is a good story, morally grey and viewable from many a perspective, but I've never been able to see Ozzy as anything but just another would be tyrant, no matter his excuses.

That said, I save most of my bile for the Comedian, who's direct hand in certain actions influenced history in a seriously negative way, a lesson there in that every time you listen to, you obey, do the bidding of, the powers that be without thinking it through, without questioning the impact and purpose, you make the world a worse place by just that much - not them, YOU.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2010 2:48 PM

Oh, also SM, I reread your post and I think I see what you mean. Why do I grab on to Rorschach for doing what I think is the right thing when Ozymandrius also thinks he did the right thing?

Because under no circumstances can I ever accept Ozzy DID do the right thing. For one time, in the entire comic book, I think we see something that is a moral absolute. Don't kill millions of people in pursuit of making the world a better place, it's seriously self-defeating.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 3, 2010 3:25 PM

Frem: yeah, nihilism kinda sets people up for that.

Of course, Comedian couldn't REALLY be a nihilist because he actually seems to end up being bothered by what he's done in the end. Which then implies he's only a poser nihilist.

Although, Dr. Manhattan sees and knows all and never does anything because he's so certain the timeline he experiences is the ONLY one. 9_9 I hate Dr. Manhattan most of all.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 6:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

But the idea of making Rorschach the villain is just plain wrong.

Where'd you get the idea that he was, or they were trying to present him as such? That totally flies in the face of the film itself. He was the one guy who refused to compromise his ideals.

You're the first person I've ever seen even make such a comment.

As noted, I got it from Byte's remark -

But according to what I read at tvtropes about "Misaimed fandom" and "Ensemble Darkhorse" Alan Moore intended for Rorschach to be unsympathetic, implying that he deserved his death for being so uncompromising (and socially uncomforming).

Sorta sounds like a bad guy to me. Maybe not THE villain, but still.... I wasn't the 1st person to make that comment (yeah, I know you qualified it with " I've ever seen ".)

It's interesting how you changed your tone, after things were cleared up.

I had already said that I hadn't read the graphic novel , and that all I knew of the Watchmen 'verse was from watching the movie itself.

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

And I still contend that saying the intent was to make him the villain - especially when the sole context of the discussion is the film, then you had a very strage reading of the film.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 7:53 AM

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
the Comedian again, and the rape of the first Silk Spectre, which we come to understand she WANTED AND ENJOYED.

That's not entirely accurate. Years after the attempted rape, she came to care for Eddie, and slept with him. As we hear her screaming at her husband, it was one time and it was a mistake, and she feels that because of the attempted rape. She's torn by it, and the situation is ambiguous, as is the entire story. The moral ambiguity of all the characters and the entire story is what makes Watchmen great. And also dark.
I'm not trying to defend Silk Spectre. I think it was stupid of her. I agree with her that it was a mistake. I don't understand what would compel her to become intimate with someone who had so brutally attacked her. Then again, she's not the only woman in the world who's made that particular mistake. That's another potential problem many people have with the story; the characters are realistic. Their motivations are murky. Real people have murky motivations, but characters are supposed to be clear-cut. Clearly good, clearly evil, clearly motivated by being good or evil. Rorschach hates shades of gray, but really that's all there is in the real world. But these murky motivations, the entirely unexpected and unpredictable turns of human life, is what Dr. Manhattan comes to understand and see as miraculous. To me, that was much of the point of the story. The miracle of life is about shades of gray. Rorschach wasn't a villain, he was just someone who couldn't fit into a world of gray. He never compromised, in anything, and it ultimately destroyed him. I don't think it was about not upholding principles at all, but about learning to compromise, to learn and expand and see things from a view other than your own. In stories, that kind of metaphor usually goes big, just as personalities usually go big, so it's filtered through a lens of moral ambiguity.
I kind of got off on a tangent there, so I'll stop now.

[/sig]

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 8:01 AM

Her later actions don't reflect on her earlier actions Re: The Comedian? There's nothing implied, nothing that can be construed (or misconstrued)?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 10:55 AM

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

I'm not sure I entirely understand your question. Her later action of sleeping with Eddie reflects on her earlier action of refusing him by way of a punch in the mouth? Is that your supposition? Because no, I don't think that her later action reflects on her earlier action. That's... kind of backwards, generally.
For example, I at one point refused to watch Buffy. When it was on the air, I regarded it with actual disdain. I violently rejected any efforts to convince me it might be worth watching. Years later, after falling in love with Firefly and having so much Buffy in the periphery, I watched and grew to love the show. Now, I know I'm talking about a show rather than a person, but does my current love of a show reflect on my past disdain for it? Can it somehow be construed that I always secretly wanted to watch Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and just fought the idea because... what? Because I could? Because I was just in denial? Because I was being perverse? Or is it more likely that I really just had no interest in it, and it grew on me over time?
The past reflects on the future, not the other way around. My past refusal to give something a chance makes my current appreciation just a bit more rich and vivid. Maybe, in a more twisted and complex way, the same could be said of the relationship between Silk Spectre and the Comedian.
Again, I'm not trying to defend her choice. I don't understand what would motivate the turnaround, I only understand that the turnaround happened. Although then, because we're talking about people and emotion, there was a renewed mistrust when Laurie was older and her father wanted to interact with her. There was quite a lot of emotional tug-of-war going on, something that happens a lot in the real world. It's not something we always understand, I certainly don't tend to understand it, but it does exist, and not just in isolated cases. Most people can relate to a toxic relationship, even if most of them don't get quite that toxic. I mean, that was pretty gorramn toxic right there. The exaggerated metaphor of storytelling.

[/sig]

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 10:59 AM

CHRISISALL

VERY well said, Miss Rose.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 11:05 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

That said, I save most of my bile for the Comedian, who's direct hand in certain actions influenced history in a seriously negative way, a lesson there in that every time you listen to, you obey, do the bidding of, the powers that be without thinking it through, without questioning the impact and purpose, you make the world a worse place by just that much - not them, YOU.

Seems like he saved up a lot of bile for himself too.
*laffs before dying*

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 11:36 AM

The reason I asked, is how would you interpret what the COMIC was trying to represent?

There's too many soap operas, too many fictional stories that try to claim the woman loved her rapist all along. Is it nonsensical? Yes! It's also misogynistic and encourages rape because it claims that rape is the woman's fault because she really wanted it, or she wouldn't have acted/dressed so flirty. And myriad other excuses.

But we never see the parts were the Comedian makes up for his bad behaviour, or Silk Spectre forgives him, or even that she's grown to care more about him. It goes from him trying to rape her, to us finding out Laurie is his daughter, and the mother crying over a picture of The Comedian after finding out he was killed. What are we SUPPOSED to think? What is being IMPLIED?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 12:02 PM

FREMDFIRMA

I'll take that one.

No being is wholly wicked though, and even in his wickedness, he had a certain charm, the allure of not giving a shit what ANYONE thought, there is a certain charm associated with such a free spirited bastard, even if most of em are sociopaths.

But not just that, even the wicked are not wicked ALL the time, they have their moments, we just don't get to see them, but human nature demands it, admittedly within the story he seems to come off as stupid evil, cause they don't really give him any less than dickheaded moments save for his breakdown to Moloch.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StupidEvil

But humans, they ain't like that - and frankly those people were seriously messed up, we don't know much about her upbringing or backstory, but she did come across to me as the type who like a moth to a flame, winds up in the orbit of a destructive relationship - if anything I was surprised it was "just that once" and remember also this, people LIE - I have my doubts about THAT little tidbit being true, cause I know people, I know how they are, and she was fronting that story to someone calling her on her behavior ?

Hell, how do we know for sure they didn't have a relationship or few encounters of sex or near-sex before that and she cut him off, cut him out, cause he was such an asshole ?

It does fit the dynamic - I ain't excusing nothing, the guy was a punk for sure, but I am not quite sure I would call her an innocent neither.

People are people, and with humans it's never as black and white as they wish it was.

-F
ETA: I do agree that both the comic and the movie do a pretty poor job of it with that particular side story, it does seem shorted and reduced to a single incident, or pair of them, when there is MORE TO IT than that, there always is...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 12:11 PM

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

I'm speaking from the perspective of the comic. In the comic, unlike the movie, there is at least mention of the more gentle encounter they had; Eddie's 'vulnerable' attitude when he came to her, years later, and they talked, and she 'saw another side of him' and ultimately they slept together. That was in there, in the flashbacks and some of the conversations Laurie has with her mother. There were no details, really, which I think is unfortunate. That's why I say the motivations are murky. We don't see every detailed step of any of their lives, and often don't see the total of their motivations for anything. We only see that they're all very screwed up.
Once again, I'm not defending the turnaround. I think it's foolish to forgive such things. I think the woman was clearly a little damaged. As they all were.
I do not excuse anything that implies rape is love, or rape is encouraged by 'flirtation' and a woman is at fault, or that rape is wanted or should ever be tolerated. I think anyone who knows me will back me up on that. That is, in fact, why I am drawing the distinction in this case. She defended herself as violently as she was able from rape. The sex that ultimately conceived her daughter was, by all indications, consenting. She DID NOT encourage the attempted rape. She did her best to beat the shit out of Eddie when he was attempting to rape her. There is a distinction between that encounter and the later, consensual encounter that conceived Laurie. Had the rape not been foiled, and Laurie conceived then, and we saw the old Silk Spectre sobbing and kissing the picture of the late Comedian with no mention of a reconciliation, that would have been a far different scenario. That would have bothered me more. It still bothers me, because I don't think what he did was excusable, but the character seems to know something that I don't, details of which are only hinted at. So, as it is, she fought violently against violence, and the only sex she had with the man was consensual. Should she have ever consented? No, not in my opinion. But she did, and that is the distinction.

edit: Frem beat me to some of that. I never even considered there might have been more than 'just the once' either, that's a good point.

[/sig]

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 12:13 PM

I think at one point, after his breakdown to Moloch, he said that he's the Comedian because the joke's on him. Yeah, I could see stupid evil too. He's a nihilist, so you wonder is he internally cares about good or evil, but he's definitely complicit with evil acts.

I think the nihilism thing is why Dr. Manhattan comes to believe he and The Comedian are fundamentally the same.

Quote:
if anything I was surprised it was "just that once" and remember also this, people LIE - I have my doubts about THAT little tidbit being true, cause I know people, I know how they are, and she was fronting that story to someone calling her on her behavior ?

This is what I think too. At the very least, the crying over the photograph thing suggests she STILL has feelings for the Comedian, if not that she had them all along, even DURING and before the rape thing. Before Eddie tries to rape her, their banter, well... Silk Spectre WAS being a tease, in a way that suggests maybe they'd done stuff already. I even thought I picked up suggestions that this wasn't the first time for attempting rape.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 12:18 PM

PR: Hmm, maybe. I'd forgotten that we actually do see the reconciliation.

But it's so murky, I think either interpretation could be correct, and though the "victims secretly want rape!" interpretation is repellent, it's troubling, for me, that the choice later to consent was even made.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 12:29 PM

FREMDFIRMA

No more troubling, and no more sad, than a woman who dumps her counsellor and goes back to an abusive spouse though...

At some point, while you can still be sympathetic, you also have this "what an idiot" kind of view of it too, and I think that's what Moore was kind of aiming for, rather than the conventional interpretation.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 12:36 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

And I still contend that saying the intent was to make him the villain - especially when the sole context of the discussion is the film, then you had a very strage reading of the film.

Wow. Ya did it again. I never said that. And
even after you've been shown that, twice, you continue to lay it back at my feet.

Curious.

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 12:42 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
though the "victims secretly want rape!" interpretation is repellent, it's troubling, for me, that the choice later to consent was even made.

That was SO uncomfortable for me in the flick.
But then, movies that make me squirm somewhat (see: Wash in Serenity) seem to make a big impact on me.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 1:02 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
though the "victims secretly want rape!" interpretation is repellent, it's troubling, for me, that the choice later to consent was even made.
That was SO uncomfortable for me in the flick.
But then, movies that make me squirm somewhat (see: Wash in Serenity) seem to make a big impact on me.

The laughing Chrisisall

Who are y'all kiddin' ? She wanted it.

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 4, 2010 1:06 PM