The Watchmen

[gingaio]

That describes Wolverine to a T and yet he's a cartoon character that kids worldwide adore and put on their lunch box...

Well, if you want to be specific, Wolverine (at least from what I remember during the Claremont era), was a reformed brute who learned not to kill unnecessarily and to submit to Xavier's code. Not to mention he was always a stud with the ladies. And his invulnerable healing factor, Adamantium bones, etc. were all symbolic of a type of physical idealization.

Rorschach is the creepy uncle with the Chevy Mailbu and a bag of lollipops on the seat next to him, cruising the junior high schools when he's not shooting cops in the chest with a grappling hook.

[taksraven]

Rorschach is the creepy uncle with the Chevy Mailbu and a bag of lollipops on the seat next to him, cruising the junior high schools when he's not shooting cops in the chest with a grappling hook.

No, he's more like the annoying uncle that you never talk to cause if you do, no matter what you say, you will annoy him and set him off into a murderous rampage. (We all have uncles like that, or is it just me?)

Seriously though, if Rorschach was a child rapist and/or killer it certainly would be much more difficult for people to see him as some sort of hero.

And once again, there would be LOTS of people who would like to shoot the local constabulary in the chest with a grappling hook. Some people call them pigs for a reason. (Not me generally, but there have been times......)

Taksraven

[Gubaba]

I just mentioned From Hell as a timeframe for the interview, I wasn't trying to bring it into the discussion.

Well, you said he should consider such things before creating characters that people would identify with. I was suggesting that his head was in a different place when he said that than when he was creating Rorschach.

Unfortunately, ugly, poor, nasty and short are all words that could be used to describe me and I am sure plenty of others out there. Apart from unhygenic and brutish, I see nothing unpleasant about the character descriptions.

I was quoting this, not trying to be offensive. Sorry.

How were we off topic??

This is a thread about the movie, and I was talking about the comic. I was also talking about "From Hell."

Its your choice, but wouldn't you do better to actually see the film itself so you can make up your own mind about it properly?

No. I didn't have to see "Meet the Spartans" to know that it wouldn't be my thing, either.

Nothing I've heard or seen about this movie has made me think I'll like it. I don't like big Hollywood action movies, I don't like the director's other works, and what I love most about Watchmen is A) the way "Tales of the Black Freighter" intertwines with the main story, B) all of issue 4, for the clarity of showing how Jon is unstuck in time, C) all of issue 5, for the symmetry of the pages, C) the backup material, D) the two detectives and the news vendor, E) the scene when Laurie has her big revelation (and throws the perfume bottle), and F) how everyone in the tenement fire (including Laurie) is being a total prick about everything. Oh, and I haven't talked to anyone in "real life" who has liked it.

Given all that, do you really think I should give it a chance?

[gingaio]

No, he's more like the annoying uncle that you never talk to cause if you do, no matter what you say, you will annoy him and set him off into a murderous rampage. (We all have uncles like that, or is it just me?)

Seriously though, if Rorschach was a child rapist and/or killer it certainly would be much more difficult for people to see him as some sort of hero.

And once again, there would be LOTS of people who would like to shoot the local constabulary in the chest with a grappling hook. Some people call them pigs for a reason. (Not me generally, but there have been times......)

Taksraven

I admit I was being sarcastic with the child molestation allegation (sort of) in regards to this sexually dysfunctional "hero" (for god's sake, he's using pieces of a woman's dress as his mask: "put the lotion in the f'ing basket" anyone...?).

It's not "if" Rorschach is a killer. He is. And we're shown that he's just as liable to kill a petty thief as he is a murderer. Which is what some might consider Draconian. Or Old Testament. Or whatever.

There's a world of difference between getting the urge every once in a while to let the neighborhood cop have it, and creating a "hero" out of a character who embodies our worst, darkest, and most repulsive instincts.

Rorschach is like a childhood fantasy/avenger gone wrong.

[eugimon]

Well, if you want to be specific, Wolverine (at least from what I remember during the Claremont era), was a reformed brute who learned not to kill unnecessarily and to submit to Xavier's code. Not to mention he was always a stud with the ladies. And his invulnerable healing factor, Adamantium bones, etc. were all symbolic of a type of physical idealization.

Rorschach is the creepy uncle with the Chevy Mailbu and a bag of lollipops on the seat next to him, cruising the junior high schools when he's not shooting cops in the chest with a grappling hook.

I guess it all depends on what you mean by unnecessarily as there are numerous upon numerous instances of wolverine killing people that he had already incapacitated or otherwise detained. The problem with wolverine is there's so many depictions of him, bushido spouting zen master dude, crazed drunken brawler, rescuer of little children and maker of orphans. Personally, I don't see the difference. Rorschach IS wolverine, distilled down without the superhero spandex wearing silliness. They both put their own moral code above anyone else's.

[taksraven]

Note - some of the things that I talk about in this post are not for the faint-hearted, don't look at the spoilers if you don't like ultra-violence.

And the comparison to Hannibal Lecter is apples and oranges--Lecter is portrayed as a charming, erudite man who always outwits his dunderheaded opposition in the end. He's a romanticized figure, a Byronic hero...like Count Dracula or something out of a Bronte novel.

Who also eats most of his victims, just thought I would get that fact out there. Remember the part where he cut open the secret agents head and cut out and ate his brains while he was still alive. I was horrified by that act, regardless of the fact that the victim supposedly 'deserved it'. There you go....

Compare this to what Gubaba described above. Violence in Moore's comic book is not portrayed in a glamorous or funny fashion (compare the bits of humor in Silence of the Lambs to the grisly acts of violence perpetrated by the Comedian).

Being from a comic book, by its own nature, a lot of the violence is stylised and unrealistic. People don't pick up other people and throw them neatly though plate glass windows. People don't punch holes in walls like that either (not without breaking every bone in their fist anyway.) Even the part in the film where the meat cleaver was pounded into the rapist/killers head, the killer just closed his eyes and died at that point, in the real world things would be much more unpleasant. And what about when the prisoners arms were sawn off, he just laid down and died instead of thrashing around bleeding to death with blood going EVERYWHERE as it would in the real world.

And, just to widen the field, look at the character of Alex in A Clockwork Orange. A killer and a rapist and still one of the most sympathetic characters in the book/film. Actually, he would be the most similar anti-hero to Rorschach.

Taksraven

[gingaio]

Eugimon wrote:

I guess it all depends on what you mean by unnecessarily as there are numerous upon numerous instances of wolverine killing people that he had already incapacitated or otherwise detained. The problem with wolverine is there's so many depictions of him

Which is why I specified the Claremont era (in the 80s).

Personally, I don't see the difference. Rorschach IS wolverine, distilled down without the superhero spandex wearing silliness. They both put their own moral code above anyone else's.

Funny. I distinctly remember Wolverine making another long Claremont-esque speech in X-Men #3 (the newer series) about how he couldn't kill Magneto because he has to "do the right thing, no matter how much it hurts."

If that's Rorschach, I'm Tina Fey.

Rorscach's "moral code," as you say, involves sending innocent cops and petty criminals to the morgue or the hospital and abusing old washed-up villains long retired. If you've got examples of Wolverine doing the same, I'd be more inclined to buy your argument.

Edited March 8, 2009 by gingaio

[taksraven]

It's not "if" Rorschach is a killer. He is. And we're shown that he's just as liable to kill a petty thief as he is a murderer. Which is what some might consider Draconian. Or Old Testament. Or whatever.

Just to clarify that, I know that he is a killer, I meant a child rapist and/or killer. Most people consider them to be much worse than ordinary killers.

Rorschach is like a childhood fantasy/avenger gone wrong.

I think that you are on the right track there. I think that he is what Batman would end up like in the real world. A criminal on the run hated by both criminals and the police.

[taksraven]

Eugimon wrote:

"I guess it all depends on what you mean by unnecessarily as there are numerous upon numerous instances of wolverine killing people that he had already incapacitated or otherwise detained. The problem with wolverine is there's so many depictions of him"

Which is why I specified the Claremont era (in the 80s).

"Personally, I don't see the difference. Rorschach IS wolverine, distilled down without the superhero spandex wearing silliness. They both put their own moral code above anyone else's."

Funny. I distinctly remember Wolverine making another long Claremont-esque speech in X-Men #3 (the newer series) about how he couldn't kill Magneto because he has to "do the right thing, no matter how much it hurts."

If that's Rorschach, I'm Tina Fey.

Rorscach's "moral code," as you say, involves sending innocent cops and petty criminals to the morgue or the hospital and abusing old washed-up villains long retired. If you've got examples of Wolverine doing the same, I'd be more inclined to buy your argument.

Good work sticking up for your hero, man.

Taksraven

[gingaio]

Who also eats most of his victims, just thought I would get that fact out there. Remember the part where he cut open the secret agents head and cut out and ate his brains while he was still alive. I was horrified by that act, regardless of the fact that the victim supposedly 'deserved it'. There you go....

And he was also joking the whole time. And after eating the man's brains, he and Clarice fly off together. How romantic.

Being from a comic book, by its own nature, a lot of the violence is stylised and unrealistic. People don't pick up other people and throw them neatly though plate glass windows. People don't punch holes in walls like that either (not without breaking every bone in their fist anyway.) Even the part in the film where the meat cleaver was pounded into the rapist/killers head, the killer just closed his eyes and died at that point, in the real world things would be much more unpleasant. And what about when the prisoners arms were sawn off, he just laid down and died instead of thrashing around bleeding to death with blood going EVERYWHERE as it would in the real world.

And, just to widen the field, look at the character of Alex in A Clockwork Orange. A killer and a rapist and still one of the most sympathetic characters in the book/film. Actually, he would be the most similar anti-hero to Rorschach.

To say that violence in a comic is unreal just because it's a comic is a faulty premise, I think. You can arbitrarily say the same thing about books, movies, documentaries (which also operate through filters). My point was that if you compare Silence of the Lambs/Hannibal to Watchmen, then you're comparing novels with a romanticized hero to a comic book about heroes who are dysfunctional and insistently unromanticized. Two different genres, essentially (different media notwithstanding).

I mean, the whole point of Watchmen was to deconstruct the comic hero myth, to tear it down, character by character. The Lecter stories were about reenvisioning the flawed hero in a contemporary setting.

Your examples (hole in the wall, arm sawed off....I can't remember if that was a brick wall). A friend of mine once punched a hole in the wall of his house without injuring his hand. As far as the arm sawed off, wasn't he already dead? Anyway, those are just details. The point is what purpose those details serve. Too often in the Lecter books, especially in the example you cited above, the gore is used as a launchpad for Lecter's humor and witticisms. And he--the witty, charming man--gets the girl in the end, too.

The violence, as "unrealistic" as it may be in Watchmen, is never glamorized or made light of or used for the purpose of celebrating a central character. The atrocity committed at the end is one that reveals just how compromised, imperfect, and criminal all of the heroes are.

And you thought Alex from Clockwork Orange was sympathetic? He was interesting as hell, but sympathetic? The character was a sadist brute with nary a redeeming quality. And in the movie, he was Kubrick's poster boy for the corruption of society....on all levels. It was a cautionary tale, not a heroic one.

Again, I think the whole anti-hero label (which connotes heroism, but flawed) is completely overused and misused these days.

Edited March 8, 2009 by gingaio

[gingaio]

Good work sticking up for your hero, man.

Taksraven

Thanks!

[Evil Porkchop]

Nothing I've heard or seen about this movie has made me think I'll like it. I don't like big Hollywood action movies, I don't like the director's other works, and what I love most about Watchmen is

A) the way "Tales of the Black Freighter" intertwines with the main story,

I believe this was added because DC wanted it to be 12 issues. I may be wrong, so please correct me if I am.

C) the backup material,

If I recall correctly this wasn't in the original story but was later added in the TPB.

So while not defending th director or the movie, as I haven't seen it. I have only read the TPB. Those things were not integral to the Watchman story, but rather added to it.

Edited March 8, 2009 by Evil Porkchop

[eugimon]

Eugimon wrote:

"I guess it all depends on what you mean by unnecessarily as there are numerous upon numerous instances of wolverine killing people that he had already incapacitated or otherwise detained. The problem with wolverine is there's so many depictions of him"

Which is why I specified the Claremont era (in the 80s).

"Personally, I don't see the difference. Rorschach IS wolverine, distilled down without the superhero spandex wearing silliness. They both put their own moral code above anyone else's."

Funny. I distinctly remember Wolverine making another long Claremont-esque speech in X-Men #3 (the newer series) about how he couldn't kill Magneto because he has to "do the right thing, no matter how much it hurts."

If that's Rorschach, I'm Tina Fey.

Rorscach's "moral code," as you say, involves sending innocent cops and petty criminals to the morgue or the hospital and abusing old washed-up villains long retired. If you've got examples of Wolverine doing the same, I'd be more inclined to buy your argument.

Old school wolverine's gutted plenty of soviet guards and mobsters. When he takes on the hellfire club he's in the sewers having just gutted a guard.

Wolverine is asked to find out what happened to a friend's child, he slaughters untold number of japanese mobsters finding out where the kid was buried. At least Rorschach put the cleaver in the actual killer's head, wolverine slices up informants.

In X-men number 1 (the jim lee reboot) Magneto and Cyclops both remark that Wolverine was trying to outright kill Magneto.

In X-men number 4 he's seen lifting his would be kidnappers by his claws which Wolverine has stuck in his chest at the time. In X-men #5 he's seen standing over a body that has claw stab wound through the top of the head. In X-men 113 Wolverine kills 2 guards, even cyclopes doesn't care and that book ends with Wolverine driving his claws through a defeated and powerless magneto.

In a recent X-force issue, wolverine has the leader of some anti-mutant cult in chains and he's hanging there upside down. Rather than bring him back to have some chip in his head removed, he lobs off the top of his skull and digs it out.

In wolverine Get Mystique, he leaves her mortally wounded out in the middle of the desert with a gun with one round.

Wolverine has put his claws through Sabertooth's head and more recently cut him to pieces with his magic sword after he had literally disarmed him.

And there's lots and lots of one shots where wolverine hunts down a small time crook or murderer to kill them.

In the ultimate universe Wolverine has to be stopped by chuck to keep from chopping cyke up and later on he leaves him to die anyways. That wolverine has also fatally stabbed magneto through the chest and cut out Colossus' heart. He also killed Bishop.

There are piles and piles and piles of bodies around wolverine. Some of the most iconic images of Wolverine are him standing atop a pile of bodies he recently slashed to pieces.

Even during claremont's run, wolverine killed plenty of normal human mobsters in Japan.

Rorschach is pretty obviously meant to satirize wolverine and other such 'heroes', imo. The heavy handed didactic self righteous moralizing, the over the top brutality, even making him short and repugnant physically. Those traits directly reference both the punisher and wolverine.

Edited March 8, 2009 by eugimon

[Loner]

I went to the IMAX yesterday. I liked Rorschach. I thought it was spot on with the comic, for the most part and was amazed at how close they got so many details that jumped to mind (from the newspaper scene to others). Bunch of little details I think could be spotted when the Blu-ray comes out.

I disagree on Rorschach being an "anti-hero" though. He is the hero. And he loses. Part of Watchmen's underlying point (somewhere between cynicism and relativism).

I disagree. Rorschach

might have died at the end, however the ending shows that he pulled off his own masterstroke

.

[gingaio]

Eugimon wrote:

In X-men number 1 (the jim lee reboot) Magneto and Cyclops both remark that Wolverine was trying to outright kill Magneto.

In X-men number 4 he's seen lifting his would be kidnappers by his claws which Wolverine has stuck in his chest at the time. In X-men #5 he's seen standing over a body that has claw stab wound through the top of the head.

Even during claremont's run, wolverine killed plenty of normal human mobsters in Japan.

The above seems to be about all that I remember from my reading (haven't read a superhero comic in nearly ten years--you're referring to the Acolytes above, no?), and in all these instances, he was killing or trying to kill people who, well, were trying to kill him and his teammates.

And hey, I've long since grown out of the phase when I thought this stuff--kill or be killed--was "cool" (even for Wolverine).

However, the point was whether Rorschach was Wolverine. He's not. Just like he's not Batman, or the Question, upon whom he was based.

Rorschach is pretty obviously meant to satirize wolverine and other such 'heroes', imo. The heavy handed didactic self righteous moralizing, the over the top brutality, even making him short and repugnant physically. Those traits directly reference both the punisher and wolverine.

And here you finally get it. Yeah, he's a satirical figure. Yeah, he's repulsive. Yeah, he's a reference to the sillier aspects of superheroes. But saying that Rorschach is Wolverine is like saying that the Watchmen--who were all based on older established characters--are those characters. And they aren't. They're deconstructed versions of what those characters would be like in "real life"--the screwed-up, non-idealized, mentally unstable trajectories of a hero fantasy taken too far.

But Wolverine--the one from that golden 80s decade--still belongs to that period of idealized fantasy. Boyish violent fantasy? Sure. But he's no Rorschach.

But who the hell knows with what Wolverine's become these days--that part of the argument I cede to you.

In any case, the satirical is not the satirized. Hyperion from Squadron Supreme, while obviously based on Superman, is not Superman. Hyperion's the social commentary of the fantasy that Superman represents.

(aside: Just like the British circa 1730 were not really contemplating eating poor Irish children.)

Edited March 8, 2009 by gingaio

[wolfx]

Poll added to topic, as requested by taksraven.

Go vote.

[eugimon]

Eugimon wrote:

In X-men number 1 (the jim lee reboot) Magneto and Cyclops both remark that Wolverine was trying to outright kill Magneto.

In X-men number 4 he's seen lifting his would be kidnappers by his claws which Wolverine has stuck in his chest at the time. In X-men #5 he's seen standing over a body that has claw stab wound through the top of the head.

Even during claremont's run, wolverine killed plenty of normal human mobsters in Japan.

The above seems to be about all that I remember from my reading (haven't read a superhero comic in nearly ten years--you're referring to the Acolytes above, no?), and in all these instances, he was killing or trying to kill people who, well, were trying to kill him and his teammates.

And hey, I've long since grown out of the phase when I thought this stuff--kill or be killed--was "cool" (even for Wolverine).

However, the point was whether Rorschach was Wolverine. He's not. Just like he's not Batman, or the Question, upon whom he was based.

Rorschach is pretty obviously meant to satirize wolverine and other such 'heroes', imo. The heavy handed didactic self righteous moralizing, the over the top brutality, even making him short and repugnant physically. Those traits directly reference both the punisher and wolverine.

And here you finally get it. Yeah, he's a satirical figure. Yeah, he's repulsive. Yeah, he's a reference to the sillier aspects of superheroes. But saying that Rorschach is Wolverine is like saying that the Watchmen--who were all based on older established characters--are those characters. And they aren't. They're deconstructed versions of what those characters would be like in "real life"--the screwed-up, non-idealized, mentally unstable trajectories of a hero fantasy taken too far.

But Wolverine--the one from that golden 80s decade--still belongs to that period of idealized fantasy. Boyish violent fantasy? Sure. But he's no Rorschach.

But who the hell knows with what Wolverine's become these days--that part of the argument I cede to you.

In any case, the satirical is not the satirized. Hyperion from Squadron Supreme, while obviously based on Superman, is not Superman. Hyperion's the social commentary of the fantasy that Superman represents.

(aside: Just like the British circa 1730 were not really contemplating eating poor Irish children.)

you missed the part where I said rorschach was a DISTILLED wolverine, devoid of the superhero trappings. I got it and expressed it clearly, you're the one who tried to turn this into Wolverine the noble knight.

[taksraven]

To say that violence in a comic is unreal just because it's a comic is a faulty premise, I think. You can arbitrarily say the same thing about books, movies, documentaries (which also operate through filters). My point was that if you compare Silence of the Lambs/Hannibal to Watchmen, then you're comparing novels with a romanticized hero to a comic book about heroes who are dysfunctional and insistently unromanticized. Two different genres, essentially (different media notwithstanding).

I guess that we will have to agree to disagree on that one.

I mean, the whole point of Watchmen was to deconstruct the comic hero myth, to tear it down, character by character. The Lecter stories were about reenvisioning the flawed hero in a contemporary setting.

I won't argue with you about the nature of the Watchmen story there. Its just the same as how "Unforgiven" was meant to deconstruct the cowboy myth. I have to agree with Alan Moore about the Hannibal Lecter stories however, and consider them a "pile of wank" with little redeemable value.

Your examples (hole in the wall, arm sawed off....I can't remember if that was a brick wall). A friend of mine once punched a hole in the wall of his house without injuring his hand. As far as the arm sawed off, wasn't he already dead? Anyway, those are just details. The point is what purpose those details serve. Too often in the Lecter books, especially in the example you cited above, the gore is used as a launchpad for Lecter's humor and witticisms. And he--the witty, charming man--gets the girl in the end, too.

I don't think that the guy was already dead when his arms were cut off. And I think that Lecter really "gets the girl in the end", because she was possibly brain damaged and drugged by Lecter, not so much due to his charm and wit.

The violence, as "unrealistic" as it may be in Watchmen, is never glamorized or made light of or used for the purpose of celebrating a central character.

I think that the orgy of violence (god, I love that expression) was just there to show how hardass Rorschach is. A bit of a celebration of his destructive capabilities. Also the part when Hooty and the chick were taking out all the prisoners. C'mon man, nobody is THAT good in unarmed combat. AND it looked cool, therefore glamourised.

The atrocity committed at the end is one that reveals just how compromised, imperfect, and criminal all of the heroes are.

That touches on the broader theme of the work "Do the ends justify the means?" and that is always a tough issue. A good example I remember was when I was studying history at Uni. My lecturer told us that when Stalin had most of the Kulak people in the Soviet Union executed in the early 1930's, (How many? Anywhere between 700,000 and 60 million, pick a number), he was actually doing them a favour because they would have starved to death anyway. To me, that was always one of the most BS arguments I have ever heard in support of genocide. Similar situation at the end of Watchmen, kill millions to prevent a Nuclear war that would kill billions. Another BS argument to support genocide. I'm with Rorschach on that one.

And you sympathized with Alex from Clockwork Orange? He was interesting as hell, but sympathetic? The character was a sadist buffet, man. And in the movie, he was Kubrick's poster boy for the corruption of society....on all levels. It was a cautionary tale, not a heroic one.

I won't start to go into the BOOK VS. FILM argument there, because its truly a nightmare. Anyway, I certainly had sympathy for Alex's victims (The catwoman rocked), but most of the other characters in the film were corrupt politicians and bureaucrats, who are really scum of the earth.

Again, I think the whole anti-hero label (which connotes heroism, but flawed) is completely overused and misused these days.

Maybe, but we live in a screwed up society anyway.

Taksraven

[gingaio]

you missed the part where I said rorschach was a DISTILLED wolverine, devoid of the superhero trappings. I got it and expressed it clearly, you're the one who tried to turn this into Wolverine the noble knight.

No, I got that.

My bad, though. I guess when I read this (bold mine)--a statement riddled with sufficient self-contradiction to fluster the most expert of philologists--my brain just gets confused:

Personally, I don't see the difference. Rorschach IS wolverine, distilled down without the superhero spandex wearing silliness. They both put their own moral code above anyone else's.

Only, like, the satirized is not the satirical, right?

And, hey, don't blame me if Claremont (and Frank Miller) wrote Wolverine as the honorable Western Samurai. I totally hated the vacation in Japan thing.

[gingaio]

That touches on the broader theme of the work "Do the ends justify the means?" and that is always a tough issue. A good example I remember was when I was studying history at Uni. My lecturer told us that when Stalin had most of the Kulak people in the Soviet Union executed in the early 1930's, (How many? Anywhere between 700,000 and 60 million, pick a number), he was actually doing them a favour because they would have starved to death anyway. To me, that was always one of the most BS arguments I have ever heard in support of genocide. Similar situation at the end of Watchmen, kill millions to prevent a Nuclear war that would kill billions. Another BS argument to support genocide. I'm with Rorschach on that one.

Taksraven

Great point. And that's why I think all the characters are so incredibly wrongheaded in the end. It's also why this book is so nihilistic.

[eugimon]

No, I got that.

My bad, though. I guess when I read this (bold mine)--a statement riddled with sufficient self-contradiction to fluster the most expert of philologists--my brain just gets confused:

Personally, I don't see the difference. Rorschach IS wolverine, distilled down without the superhero spandex wearing silliness. They both put their own moral code above anyone else's.

Only, like, the satirized is not the satirical, right?

And, hey, don't blame me if Claremont (and Frank Miller) wrote Wolverine as the honorable Western Samurai. I totally hated the vacation in Japan thing.

If that piece of condescending pedantic drivel is what passes for an apology in your world, I accept it.

[gingaio]

If that piece of condescending pedantic drivel is what passes for an apology in your world, I accept it.

Well, it sort of wasn't.

But I think you "got" that.

[eugimon]

Well, it sort of wasn't.

But I think you "got" that.

hey, if it helps you feel better about the fact that you're not able to read a complete sentence without getting your panties in a twist (let alone the entire paragraph), then I've already helped someone and my day's only just begun. Good times.

By the way, Claremont and the rest of the 80's called, they want their air quotes back.

Edited March 8, 2009 by eugimon

[taksraven]

If that piece of condescending pedantic drivel is what passes for an apology in your world, I accept it.

I think that "Nuker of Unborn, Gay, Space Whales." should be replaced with "Accepter of condescending pedantic drivel". :lol:

Taksraven

[eugimon]

I think that "Nuker of Unborn, Gay, Space Whales." should be replaced with "Accepter of condescending pedantic drivel". :lol:

Taksraven

Oh, if only that were true, than I wouldn't get sucked into so many worthless debates with people who have the reading comprehension of a 2 year old.

[gingaio]

Oh, if only that were true, than I wouldn't get sucked into so many worthless debates with people who have the reading comprehension of a 2 year old.

It's awfully nice of you to be always sucked into worthless debates with two-year-olds who can't read good, because, well, I did not know that that was your thing.

If you don't mind, let me take a few hours to thumb through my comic collection so I can reply your detailed bullet list of Wolvie's actions in the past twenty years with a more detailed bullet list.

Thanks!

Edited March 8, 2009 by gingaio

[gingaio]

By the way, Claremont and the rest of the 80's called, they want their air quotes back.

Okay, but I'm holding on to my "Member's Only" jacket.

BTW, where can I learn to be as fly and good with the "snaps" as you?

Edited March 8, 2009 by gingaio

[mikeszekely]

What option do you pick in the poll if you even hated the sex scenes?

And shouldn't it read "should have mosaic-ed Dr. Manhattan's unmentionables" instead of "shouldn't"? I don't know what movie you guys saw, but the one I saw had plenty of uncensored blue glowing dicks.

[miles316]

Don't you mean

the Zapruder Film

?

And of course the graphic novel's still available! Do you think DC would miss out on the chance to cash in?

Besides, as soon as it goes out of print, all the rights revert to Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons, and that's the LAST thing DC wants...

It is Segruder i looked it up.

[chowyunskinny]

It is Segruder i looked it up.

Actually it's McGruber

[Gubaba]

I believe this was added because DC wanted it to be 12 issues. I may be wrong, so please correct me if I am.

If I recall correctly this wasn't in the original story but was later added in the TPB.

So while not defending th director or the movie, as I haven't seen it. I have only read the TPB. Those things were not integral to the Watchman story, but rather added to it.

So, "Tales from the Black Freighter" was added at DC's request? I hadn't heard that, but it makes me respect Alan Moor and Dave Gibbons even more for making it integral to the main story.

And I do have the single issues, and all the back-up material is there. The only thing that's missing (sometimes, not always) are the chapter titles and ending quotations. But strangely, there's space made on the page for them. I'm assuming it was a rights issue, but I have no proof of that.

It is Segruder i looked it up.

Really? I Googled "Segruder Film" and got one, lonesome hit, which may or may not have anything to do with JFK. The Zapruder Film, however, is quite famous.

[wolfx]

What option do you pick in the poll if you even hated the sex scenes?

And shouldn't it read "should have mosaic-ed Dr. Manhattan's unmentionables" instead of "shouldn't"? I don't know what movie you guys saw, but the one I saw had plenty of uncensored blue glowing dicks.

You pick 1 as well.

And the version i saw had it blurred. Hmmm...i thought all the releases had the same thing.

[miles316]

Really? I Googled "Segruder Film" and got one, lonesome hit, which may or may not have anything to do with JFK. The Zapruder Film, however, is quite famous.

Your right I should have looked harder, but it still is disgusting. The reason I found it disturbing was because it was a real event. I am surprised that the Kennedy family did not slap Warner Brothers and DC with a law suit.

Was Rorschach put in a jail or prison, or did they put him in a high security prison so he would not escape. Rorschach had not been convicted yet had he.

Edited March 8, 2009 by miles316

[miles316]

You pick 1 as well.

And the version i saw had it blurred. Hmmm...i thought all the releases had the same thing.

Was your movies rated R because the one I saw had DR, M in all his well endowed glory. I'm surprised that one of them did not tell him to cover himself up which sounds like something Rorschach would say given how repulsed he was of sex.

[magicsp00n]

I caught the movie last night. I guess I got the non-mosaic Dr. M version. I didn't even know they were doing that until I read this thread...

I thought it was okay, but hollow. It reproduced the look of the comic without all the depth.