Not in 1974. Besides, I think Captain Metropolis had been retired at that point.
Agreed. He may have been the world’s smartest (and most devious) man, but not every famous person’s death after WW2 was Veidt’s doing. 
Actually, on reflection, that just makes Comedian plugging Kennedy from the grassy knoll even more annoying. The only thing like this in the comic was a joke Blake told at a cocktail party (and it was actually quite amusing, both to me and the other characters) and the vaguest speculation by Veidt that Nixon was involved, somehow. In November 1963, wasn’t Nixon in semi-retirement, having the year before lost his bid for Governor of California, and was well into his “wilderness” years? Whacking Kennedy surely wasn’t going to get Nixon back on top anytime soon.
Sure it does. Depends on the movie and the context, but there are places it belongs. The movie “Body Heat” for example, would have been less powerful without the sex scenes, and they arguably should have been more explicit in that scene. Most 80s sword and sandal movies were raunchy and were the better for it.
This kinda sounds like a filmmaker equivalent to the Saudi Arabian notion that it is women’s responsiblity to go around in burkhas alla time because the sight of any portion of their bodies would arouse men and the men would rape them and it would be the woman’s fault because men can’t be held responsible for their sexual urges. I mean, I’m sorry if sex scenes frustrate you, but I just enjoy them for what they are and don’t feel frustrated at all. I find them arousing but they don’t lead me down a path toward inevitable, tragic, theatrical orgasm or a serious case of blue balls.
I’m also a bit mystified by the general rejection of sex in mainstream movies – movies portray (aspects of) life, and sex is a part of life; to reduce its role in films to mere masturbation fodder is akin to reducing its role in real life to simply a means of achieving orgasm.
I think there’s some really good insight to this, but that’s not what my issue is.
Being sick is as common a part of real life as sex is, as is sleeping, driving an hour to work, and taking shits, all of which are actions that can have a profound effect on a story but depicted in excess detail can be dull or distracting. The amount of time spent depicting any action, however mundane or extraordinary, in a creative work should be equal to how it benefits the work. So, in a porn movie, where the sex is the point, lots of time should be spent on it, but in an action or drama film the amount needed decreases greatly. I feel that the amount in Watchmen was too much.
Just got out of WM!
FREAKIN’ ROCKED!!!
Not as violent or as sexual as I expected from the descriptions here. Ending change wasn’t all that major. I did miss the city people interactions- the newspaper vendor, the Black Freighter reader, the taxi driver & her ex-GF. I hope to see a lot of that in the DVD extras. Blue penis occurence was about what I expected.
Btw, if Miss Ackerman ever decides to get a boob job, she should be forcibly restrained. Those babies are perfect!
Wasn’t there, in addition to the murder of the Comedian, the attack on Veidt and his assistant and the exile of Dr. Manhattan? Maybe I’m getting my timeline wrong, but I think those three things happened around the same time.
Well, part of the reason little Walter looked up to Truman is because he knew his father supported Truman and his mother opposed him, and he hated his mother and loved his absent father. It’s interesting, though, that the reason that he gave to justify Truman dropping the bomb (that it stopped the war and saved even more lives) is the same reason Veidt gives for his actions.)
Also, quick question…who killed Moloch? Rohrschach is arrested for it, but we know he didn’t do it. Did Moloch kill himself, because of the cancer, or did Veidt have him killed because he knew the Comedian visited him before his murder?
Beginning, middle, and end. The attack on Veidt happened after Rorschach warned him, I think. Manhattan’s exile came near to the end, though.
The comic seemed to take place in a weeks time. The movie seemed to take place in two to three days, with the Comdian’s death on the first day and the attack on Veidt and the ending taking place on the third.
Veidt killed Moloch himself. In the movie they show a flashback with Veidt in Moloch’s apartment dressed in the same get-up he used to kill the Comedian.
Veidt staged his own assassination attempt to support Rorschach’s mask killer theory. So, it happened after Rorschach decided there was a mask killer.
Veidt killed Moloch, or had him killed. Left a note in Rorschach’s mail drop and called the cops with a tip.
By late 1963 Nixon was a corporate lawyer for, among other big clients, Coca-Cola. He really was in Dallas early on Nov. 22 to speak to a Coca-Cola bottlers’ convention, IIRC. The GN refers to the Comedian being “in Dallas, minding Nixon,” on the day of the assassination, strongly implying that he played a role in the President’s death. If you get in the GN’s Nixonian mindset, you could surmise that he was still resentful of Kennedy’s narrow defeat of him in the 1960 election, and had set his sights once more on the White House. With JFK out of the way, he might have reasoned, he would have an easier time reaching his goal.
Mind you, IMHO Nixon was a dirty rotten scoundrel and a crook, easily one of our worst Presidents, but even I don’t think he was a murderer.
Anduinel, thanks for the link about Hooded Justice’s and Captain Metropolis’s possible later appearance in the GN. I remember seeing those men and wondering what was up with them. Intriguing theory.
They really need to make a poster of Silhouette’s V-Day kiss.
In my opinion, sex scenes are tedious and awkward to watch, and shoehorning them into otherwise enjoyable movies wastes time that could be spent on other things.
I don’t think that’s a fair analogy; there’s a huge difference between making women wear burkhas and not wanting to see explicit sex in mainstream films, IMHO.
I don’t have a hair trigger in that sense, but yeah, explicit sex scenes in mainstream films can give me an uncomfortable erection and a case of blue balls- depending on the context and other factors, of course. The scene in Watchmen didn’t because I was vaguely insulted that the director had assumed I was a high-school comic book nerd who wanted some Superhero Pr0n, instead of an intelligent filmgoer who wanted a mature story.
Ditto the thanks from me. I ABSOLUTELY buy this theory. The evidence that gets me is the notion that NOTHING is an accident in Watchmen.
Those bowties are bolo masks. No doubt about it.
Note the four-legged chicken, too (mentioned in some background dialogue in the same scene in the movie).
Question (sorry if someone else mentioned it - I did read the thread): Did anyone else notice Archie flying up in front of the moon like the Batwing in the Batman movie? It was so brief I only barely registered it. I’d like to see a still image. I think it was right before they went to spring Rorscach.
Not likely. It was similar (indeed, identical) to the matching panels in the comic at the end of Chapter 7, and this was several years before the Batman movie.