MovieChat Forums > Watchmen (2009) Discussion > Completely broken

Completely broken

posted 8 years ago by shatteredbluedreams
36 replies | jump to latest

Watchmen is unwatchable for most people yet some consider it a masterpiece.

I tried it again the other night (cuz I'm a masochist) and from the very beginning was struck by how completely awful it is. Everything is done badly.

It is hard to articulate why it's so bad, since most of what's going on in a movie is intangible, but I have an analogy.

Watchmen feels like the output of a text-to-speech program. Synthetic speech is intelligible but obviously synthetic. Ask a normal person how synthetic speech differs from human speech and they will struggle to do so, yet identifying synthetic from natural is an instant and automatic process.

The opening scene shows The Comedian making coffee while listening to the news. The camera framing and editing feel disjointed and odd. The news voice sounds fake, caricatured. The Comedian sits down and points a remote control at his TV, at which point the movie jumps to the TV studio. We see a teleprompter and Richard Nixon. The camera movements continue to feel off, and the Nixon performance looks and sounds rubbery and fake. Everything is staged, awkward, forced and most of all boring.

Now we have a minute of talking heads political commentary. Why? Is it meant to be satirical? Poignant? Funny? The Comedian dismissively changes channels until he gets to a pretty girl in an idyllic setting, overlaid with Nat King Cole's "Unforgettable". Cut to the hall outside his door, camera moving slowly forward. The Comedian notices shadow movement under his door, then the door gets broken open.

Shadowy figure enters.

"Just a matter of time I suppose," says The Comedian.

A fight commences, ebbing in and out of slow motion that exacerbates the disjointed camera framing, movement and editing. The Nat King Cole song has become the film's soundtrack.

The actors awkwardly stand apart from each other, square legs and swinging shoulders. It's like their feet are trapped in drying cement. This is the first cringeworthy moment of the movie. This out-of-nowhere fight between characters we know nothing about has the physical realism of a Warner Bros cartoon, or very young children playfighting.

At this point the brain tries to rationalise the contradiction of an internationally distributed professional movie production being so poorly made, wondering if this is a dry parody. Is it bad on purpose?

A few more moments of awkward action follow, with The Comedian failing to defend himself with a series of weapons and objects. Broken bones, smashed glass, then another line of dialogue:

"It's a joke. It's all a joke. Mother forgive me."

These lines are delivered so badly that again you cringe, worse than before. The awkward zoom and continued use of "Unforgettable" amplify the awfulness. Blood drops onto a smiley face badge pinned to The Comedian's dressing gown. His attacker throws him out the window to his death stories below.

Cue Bob Dylan "The Times Are a-Changin".

This film is like listening to 2 hours and 33 minutes of a text-to-speech program reading a novel.

I can only explain away the fandom of this movie as people who aren't bothered by the disjointedness, the "wrongness", because they can't tell the difference. There probably aren't many humans on Earth who cannot distinguish between synthetic speech and human speech, but movies are a more complex cognitive experience, mixing both sound and vision in a dynamic way. I'm guessing the fans of Watchmen, and probably the director, cannot tell whether a movie is flowing naturally or is disjointed and broken.

Such a cognitive limitation would explain the fringe fanbase for other completely broken movies like the Star Wars prequels, Prometheus, John Carter and Jupiter Ascending. Fans of these movies all proclaim them as masterpieces overlooked by people who "don't get it". Ironic, since such movies are only tolerable for the handful of people who cannot see what is instantly recognisable to everyone else: these movies are broken in every way.

================================
A couple I know are getting married...
...the fools

[–] The_White_Hotel 8 years ago

Translation: I didn't like it so everyone who did must be an idiot.

Thanks for your input.

These are the only words I have, I'm stuck with them, stuck in them

[–] shatteredbluedreams 8 years ago

Translation: I didn't like it so everyone who did must be an idiot.

Actually my post was against that mindset. A person likes it so proclaims it a masterpiece. You've misinterpreted the data to reach the exact opposite meaning than that presented, which ironically is my point about Watchmen fans.

Now there's no way for a person to know they're emotionally colourblind just from their own emotional interactions with art and people, but when everyone else in the room reaches the same conclusion as each other yet the complete opposite of yours, eventually you should realise something is amiss.

If you read reviews of Watchmen, negative reviews say the same things I've been saying, whereas positive reviews ignore those issues entirely. Watchmen fans don't like clunky editing and cinematography and score and acting and dialogue; they simply don't recognise it. For them, natural atmospheric flowing filmmaking is indistinguishable from clumsily hacked together wannabe filmmaking. For the emotionally colourblind, story and ideas and visual design are the focus because that's all they can see.

I don't expect anyone here to accept this idea, but I'd like to see someone present an alternative explanation for the fanbases of the movies I mentioned. You can add Southland Tales, The Man from U.N.C.L.E. (2015) and M. Night Shyamalan movies to the list too. Check the boards for those movies. You'll see the same story as here: a handful of fans defiantly proclaiming themselves as the chosen few able to recognise the genius in movies that everyone else laughs at.

================================
A couple I know are getting married...
...the fools

[–] The_White_Hotel 8 years ago

You're projecting an entire emotional identity on to me (and others) based on the idea that I think this film is a masterpiece, which I haven't said and in fact don't. I just quite like it. I'm sure you like movies that I think are sh!t too. I'm not going to construct a personality for you based around it though. More than the film itself, I enjoyed the access to its world it gave me. It made me read the source material, which I also really enjoyed, and I would never normally read a comic book. The film gives continued or renewed access to this world, and whilst far from perfect it does feature some very effective sequences and in my view is far from "completely broken". If you can't understand how someone's opinion could vary from your own without diagnosing them as emotionally illiterate or whatever it is that you are attempting to suggest here I rather think that that says more about you than about the person or people you attempting to describe.

These are the only words I have, I'm stuck with them, stuck in them

[–] shatteredbluedreams 8 years ago

You're projecting an entire emotional identity on to me (and others) based on the idea that I think this film is a masterpiece, which I haven't said and in fact don't. I just quite like it.

More than the film itself, I enjoyed the access to its world it gave me. It made me read the source material, which I also really enjoyed, and I would never normally read a comic book. The film gives continued or renewed access to this world, and whilst far from perfect it does feature some very effective sequences and in my view is far from "completely broken".

Hedging your bets. What I've said is true, that fans of movies like Watchmen proclaim the movies as misunderstood masterpieces. If you bother to read other threads on this board, and the boards for those other films, you'll see this for yourself. That you don't consider the film to be perfect or misunderstood doesn't change that, especially when you are the only person thus far defending my argument that Watchmen is not a masterpiece.

You're already conceding that the film is partly broken, but that's okay because it led you to the source comic... doesn't make the movie any better.

There are no effective sequences for people capable of seeing the problems. The movie is the antithesis of perfection. The filmmaking doesn't drastically change at any point. Same clunkiness in the editing, acting, etc throughout.

I'm sure you like movies that I think are sh!t too. I'm not going to construct a personality for you based around it though.

If you can't understand how someone's opinion could vary from your own without diagnosing them as emotionally illiterate or whatever it is that you are attempting to suggest here I rather think that that says more about you than about the person or people you attempting to describe.

This isn't about aesthetic preference. No-one likes the sound of nails on a chalkboard or the smell of sewerage. People unable to sense such unpleasantries are not bothered by them. This isn't a matter of favourite colour or artistic temperament. This is a case of unwatchable movies finding an audience in people who cannot see the problems.

So no, you don't have a different opinion on awful things, you just lack the ability to detect some of them, so they don't repulse you. A blind person doesn't have a different opinion on a painting; they have no opinion on things they cannot experience.

The all-encompassing awfulness of these movies is what makes me so curious. They're not just a bit flat or a bit off. In every possible category they fail, as parts and as a whole.

Yet every one of them manages to attract a handful of fans. It's kind of fascinating. There is no movie so awful that someone won't latch onto it it seems. Especially when pushed by the Hollywood system.

================================
A couple I know are getting married...
...the fools

[–] The_White_Hotel 8 years ago

There are no effective sequences for people capable of seeing the problems.

Opinion. I'm sure you're familiar with the expression about how we all have one.

This isn't about aesthetic preference.

Yes it is.

So no, you don't have a different opinion on awful things, you just lack the ability to detect some of them, so they don't repulse you. A blind person doesn't have a different opinion on a painting; they have no opinion on things they cannot experience.

Insulting, patronising and frankly, makes you come across as a complete dick.

There is no movie so awful that someone won't latch onto it it seems.

There's also not one so good that someone won't declare it the worst movie they've ever seen. Are you seriously unaware that what you are currently doing is verbosely trying to come up with reasons that your subjectively arrived at appraisal of a movie carries within it some sort of universal truth? You do rather seem to have a problem with comprehending the simple fact that there is no universal consensus in art. You attempt to rationalise this uncomfortable truth by declaring the complete absence of all critical faculties in whoever disagrees with you even though these people are complete strangers in every respect, going so far in fact as to state that their ability to appreciate cinema is identical to a blind person's ability to appreciate painting. And you do all this based on the ridiculous notion that your hyperbolic opinion is factually irreproachable. I refer you once again to my first post.

These are the only words I have, I'm stuck with them, stuck in them

[–] shatteredbluedreams 8 years ago

So no, you don't have a different opinion on awful things, you just lack the ability to detect some of them, so they don't repulse you. A blind person doesn't have a different opinion on a painting; they have no opinion on things they cannot experience.

Insulting, patronising and frankly, makes you come across as a complete dick.

You accept the idea, but you don't accept that it applies to you.

There is no movie so awful that someone won't latch onto it it seems.

There's also not one so good that someone won't declare it the worst movie they've ever seen.

You've just argued for my point, not against it.

Take The Wizard of Oz (1939). You'll struggle to find anyone sincerely claiming that's a bad movie, much less the worst ever movie. Some people may not like the movie, but it's well recognised as a superbly made movie. Anyone seriously claiming it's a badly made movie will be a fringe lunatic; perhaps the kind who loves bad movies like Watchmen and the Star Wars prequels, or perhaps another kind of malfunctioning brain entirely.

Are you seriously unaware that what you are currently doing is verbosely trying to come up with reasons that your subjectively arrived at appraisal of a movie carries within it some sort of universal truth? You do rather seem to have a problem with comprehending the simple fact that there is no universal consensus in art. You attempt to rationalise this uncomfortable truth by declaring the complete absence of all critical faculties in whoever disagrees with you even though these people are complete strangers in every respect, going so far in fact as to state that their ability to appreciate cinema is identical to a blind person's ability to appreciate painting. And you do all this based on the ridiculous notion that your hyperbolic opinion is factually irreproachable. I refer you once again to my first post.

Your ongoing misunderstanding of my argument continues to be consistent with my theory that cognitive impairment is required for enjoyment of broken art.

I am saying there is a difference between aesthetics and craftmanship. You might disagree that this applies to Watchmen, but you surely understand the theory.

Since all my previous analogies have failed you, try this one:

There is a wall painted yellow. Only parts of the wall are painted. All of the wall is variously unfinished, cracked, mouldy or crumbling. I dislike the wall because of the flaws. You dismiss my view as a distaste for the colour yellow, even after I point out the cracks and mould, and tell you that I like a yellow wall when it's painted properly.

You see, we all see the world subjectively. That doesn't change facts, merely how we feel about facts. For example, if I say that I disliked Dr Manhattan's blue skin, you can say you liked his blue skin and that's fine. You cannot say that you liked Dr Manhattan because he was green; that is invalid as an opinion, regardless of how you feel about colours. If you are colourblind, then Dr Manhattan may actually look green to you, but this makes your view a fringe anomaly caused by a cognitive impairment.

Your theory is that we see the same film and feel differently about it.

My theory is that we are seeing different films.

There is a way to test this. Talk about one of the effective sequences. Spend a few paragraphs on what you liked, and why. Then I will respond with how I felt about that same sequence.

If you are right, we will talk about the same things, albeit from different perspectives.

If I am right, you won't mention the things I describe as problems.

Time to back up your opinion.

================================
A couple I know are getting married...
...the fools

[–] The_White_Hotel 8 years ago

Your theory is that we see the same film and feel differently about it.

My theory is that we are seeing different films.

If that is indeed your "theory" then really we are wasting our time here (or, more accurately, you are wasting mine) because quite patently we are seeing the same film but we each feel differently about it. I don't have the inclination to argue about this as it's inherently true. Your suggestion that it isn't relies on the same obnoxious self-satisfaction that is my basic problem with your whole position.

If you feel the need to diagnose "cognitive impairment" (ie, lack of brain function) in others in order to support your "theory" then once again, what you are saying is that people who disagree with you are stupid, or at the very least, stupider than you, and that is the reason for their disagreement. Your continuation of this argument relies on diagnosing stupidity again; you're saying I can't see what your original point is. I can see it, I'm just rejecting it. Yours is a view that displays a small-mindedness, perhaps even a lack of imagination in comprehending how a different brain can see the same thing as you and not think the same thing about it. You mention subjectivity and facts but you are apparently unable to tell the difference between them. Your wall analogy is redundant as I do not deny faults in Watchmen, and your "test" is pointless as your opinion (and once again I stress that's all that it is) on this film is apparently so inflexible and relies on a policy of zero-tolerance towards flaws that I do not share. Once again, this is an example of a subjectivity that you not only deny is possible but seek to replace with the (and I also stress this again) ridiculous and self-aggrandising notion that your response to this film is the only valid one.

I like to various degrees a large number of films for a wide variety of reasons (which you would know if you knew the first thing about me which you do not) very few of which I would say were even close to faultless. I love many B movies which are abundant with bad acting, static directing, amateurish cinematography and many other problems. Films do not have to be technically or aesthetically perfect in order for me to enjoy them. In some cases they do not even have to be particularly good films. The enjoyment can come from an atmosphere, a sensibility, a subtext, a politcal stance, and any number of other sources. You are arguing that I do not see problems in Watchmen at all because I am unattuned to such things, and this is the reason I am able to enjoy it. I am outright telling you that this is not the case yet you continue to argue as if I had not said this. Your argument relies on a baseless assumption about a stranger which is why it is completely meritless and rather insulting. I am trying to open your eyes and your closed mind a little bit and you are resisting this with all your rhetorical but ultimately pointless might, reverting back continually to your original naive and thoroughly overstated point; people who do not share your opinions are cognitively or critically incapable of doing so.

Edit: So I think I have just encountered the first interesting thing you have said so far in this discussion. Reading your next post, a reply to someone else, you mention the portrayal of Nixon in this film as being less than perfect. This appraisal seems to ignore the crucial fact that the world portrayed in Watchmen is not our world but a caricature of it. It diverged from our world some time in the 1930s. The time, in fact, that superheros were created, in our world in comics, in Watchmen's world in reality. A caricature is an exaggeration, a distortion, normally designed to convey a point. In this case the point is that the Nixon of this film is a monstrous deformity, a four-term president who was literally responsible for things like the murder of Woodward and Bernstein. If you are watching this movie and are concerned by the fact that Nixon is not portrayed accurately then you are missing the point, misunderstanding the intention of the film and demonstrating your own inability to competently interpret the material in front of you. I wonder how many more of your negative judgments about this film can be put down to this same lack of ability.

These are the only words I have, I'm stuck with them, stuck in them

[–] shatteredbluedreams 8 years ago

Your theory is that we see the same film and feel differently about it.

My theory is that we are seeing different films.

If that is indeed your "theory" then really we are wasting our time here (or, more accurately, you are wasting mine) because quite patently we are seeing the same film but we each feel differently about it. I don't have the inclination to argue about this as it's inherently true. Your suggestion that it isn't relies on the same obnoxious self-satisfaction that is my basic problem with your whole position.

If you feel the need to diagnose "cognitive impairment" (ie, lack of brain function) in others in order to support your "theory" then once again, what you are saying is that people who disagree with you are stupid, or at the very least, stupider than you, and that is the reason for their disagreement. Your continuation of this argument relies on diagnosing stupidity again; you're saying I can't see what your original point is. I can see it, I'm just rejecting it. Yours is a view that displays a small-mindedness, perhaps even a lack of imagination in comprehending how a different brain can see the same thing as you and not think the same thing about it. You mention subjectivity and facts but you are apparently unable to tell the difference between them.

Colour blind people see a different film. Colour blindness doesn't make a person stupid.

Dyslexics see the world differently. They're not stupid either.

Your wall analogy is redundant as I do not deny faults in Watchmen, and your "test" is pointless as your opinion (and once again I stress that's all that it is) on this film is apparently so inflexible and relies on a policy of zero-tolerance towards flaws that I do not share. Once again, this is an example of a subjectivity that you not only deny is possible but seek to replace with the (and I also stress this again) ridiculous and self-aggrandising notion that your response to this film is the only valid one.

You are denying that Watchmen is nothing but faults, and talking in specifics about the film will show why this is.

Differing aesthetic preferences, or differing cognitive processing?

Yes, I am saying that Watchmen is a film so bad that no-one can like it without having something wrong with their brain. Not stupidity, it's not that simple. An inability to process emotions in a full and complete way, thereby rendering them oblivious to bad acting, camerawork, editing, music choices, etc.

You are arguing that I do not see problems in Watchmen at all because I am unattuned to such things, and this is the reason I am able to enjoy it. I am outright telling you that this is not the case yet you continue to argue as if I had not said this.

Don't tell me, show me. Talk about a scene you liked. What was an effective sequence in Watchmen?

I will then tell you about all the problems in that sequence that make it ineffective for every human being capable of perceiving those problems.

It will not be a case of us disagreeing about the same thing. You will skip over the problems entirely, because they are essentially invisible to you.

Or not. Maybe I'm wrong. Let's find out.

I like to various degrees a large number of films for a wide variety of reasons (which you would know if you knew the first thing about me which you do not) very few of which I would say were even close to faultless. I love many B movies which are abundant with bad acting, static directing, amateurish cinematography and many other problems. Films do not have to be technically or aesthetically perfect in order for me to enjoy them. In some cases they do not even have to be particularly good films. The enjoyment can come from an atmosphere, a sensibility, a subtext, a politcal stance, and any number of other sources.

Your argument relies on a baseless assumption about a stranger which is why it is completely meritless and rather insulting. I am trying to open your eyes and your closed mind a little bit and you are resisting this with all your rhetorical but ultimately pointless might, reverting back continually to your original naive and thoroughly overstated point; people who do not share your opinions are cognitively or critically incapable of doing so.

You may have noticed that I am rearranging your text in my quoted responses. This is to clarify and simplify your writing, as you tend to jump around between different points. This is a small clue that your brain processes things a little differently. Not stupidly, but differently, and such soft chaos could be magnified in the cognitive overload that is a film.

Not everyone is colourblind in the same way. Some people can't see certain colours. Others see no colour. Brains are complex, and while I insist that all people enjoying Watchmen are missing the required cognition to detect bad film making, why and to what degree that cognition is missing will vary.

You may well be able to spot the bad acting in a B movie, yet struggle to see it in a glossy A-list movie. The particulars don't matter. All that matters is that you're putting your hand up as a fan, at least in part, of a movie that is flawed from beginning to end. Unless you're enjoying the movie ironically, that means something's missing.

To go back to my Dr Manhattan colour analogy, if you did claim that he was green and I responded that he is blue and you are colourblind, would that be a baseless assumption about a stranger? Would that be insulting? Would that be calling you stupid?

Edit: So I think I have just encountered the first interesting thing you have said so far in this discussion. Reading your next post, a reply to someone else, you mention the portrayal of Nixon in this film as being less than perfect. This appraisal seems to ignore the crucial fact that the world portrayed in Watchmen is not our world but a caricature of it. It diverged from our world some time in the 1930s. The time, in fact, that superheros were created, in our world in comics, in Watchmen's world in reality. A caricature is an exaggeration, a distortion, normally designed to convey a point. In this case the point is that the Nixon of this film is a monstrous deformity, a four-term president who was literally responsible for things like the murder of Woodward and Bernstein. If you are watching this movie and are concerned by the fact that Nixon is not portrayed accurately then you are missing the point, misunderstanding the intention of the film and demonstrating your own inability to competently interpret the material in front of you. I wonder how many more of your negative judgments about this film can be put down to this same lack of ability.

You're wrong on two counts.

Firstly, the concept of Watchmen is to put superheroes in the real world and watch how the superhero concept unravels.

Secondly, the film has several other cases of poor makeup and prosthetics. Carla Gugino's original Silk Spectre has terrible old age makeup. Dr Manhattan's body looks like a foam body suit, the way the muscles never move. The best example of this is when he first kisses the young Silk Spectre, leaning over without his muscles budging. Neither the old Silk Spectre nor Dr Manhattan's body convey the idea that Watchmen is in a parallel timeline.

You are hung up on your right to an opinion. I draw a sharp line between opinions and aesthetic preference. Lumping them together devalues the meaning of the word "opinion".

An opinion should be based on facts. People are not entitled to opinions. They have to be earned by applying reason and thought to facts. This is why an expert opinion is worth more than a lay opinion in a court (forgetting for a moment that the justice system is a charade).

An aesthetic preference doesn't have to be justified or earned. Like whatever colour you wish. Like whatever flavours. Like whatever music. Like whatever movies.

But don't tell me you like strawberries and are happy eating mouldy strawberries. Liking strawberries is an aesthetic preference, great. No-one likes food that has gone off, unless they have lost their sense of taste and smell.

There is a limit to aesthetic preference. All humans find things outside of the normal range to be intolerable. A badly put together movie is not as repulsive as the smell of a rotting animal corpse, but it is outside anyone's taste.

You need to admit this, even if you still deny that Watchmen doesn't qualify. There is such a thing as art so bad that no-one can enjoy it. It's not a matter of personal taste.

Now, let's get into the specifics of why you like Watchmen. If you can write this much in generalities, you can give a few more paragraphs to talk about the actual film.

================================
A couple I know are getting married...
...the fools

[–] The_White_Hotel 8 years ago

I don't know how to continue with this conversation. Your ridiculous hyperbole, which you apparently can't see at all, is your defining characteristic. Your position here is so much more extreme than the supposition that Watchmen is a film that is not in all ways abhorrent and yet you cannot recognise this. This whole thing actually goes beyond a discussion of this film, but as I implied earlier I am not inclined to have this broader conversation with you given how steadfastly you cling to your offensive and indefensible "theory".

You are wasting my time by repeating what I already know you have said and what I have already responded to. You are further wasting my time by quoting what I have said back to me at great length and then going over it in even greater length in ways we have already covered, for example: I said I enjoy countless movies with bad acting so the bad acting in Watchmen is not an impediment to my enjoyment. Your response? Maybe you "struggle" to see the bad acting in Watchmen. Clearly this is not the case as my whole point to begin with was that I see it, but like in many other films it does not overly detract from my ability to enjoy the film. Already answered, already dealt with, why do you carry on as if I hadn't said that? And why do you do it in such a presumptive and obnoxious way? You are talking to me like I am a god damn moron which you apparently can't see at all, and yet you are accusing me of cognitive disabilities, albeit wrapped up in your disingenuous, mitigated way. Is any of this getting through to you at all or are you going to meet this post with yet another needlessly wordy repetition of your unsustainable position?

If you think watching a movie with flaws and not letting them overly bother you is akin to eating rancid fruit as if it was not rancid then you have lost touch with reality to a point where any response you get is unimportant. You have ducked the issue that you have completely misread the film's intentions regarding the Nixon caricature and carried on merrily in your "I'm infallible" tone as if you hadn't pointed out a supposed "problem" with the film that was in fact a conscious decision of the film, and one made for entirely justifiable reasons (explained by me above and ignored completely by you in favour of simply raising another issue, that Silk Spectre's aging make up looks bad, which I agree with and don't "struggle" to see but has nothing to do with the fact that you can't tell the difference between a satirical caricature of an alternative-history Nixon and a genuine attempt to depict Nixon as realistically as possible). You keep repeating pointless and inapplicable analogies. And you're still inexplicably sticking to this line

There is such a thing as art so bad that no-one can enjoy it.

There is not a film on this site that someone has not rated a ten out of ten, and that's a ten, forget all the sixes and sevens of mediocre enjoyment. The sentence quoted above is pretty much as demonstrably untrue a statement as you could hope to make. Even if it were true (and it isn't) of some hopeless, pitiable and pathetic piece of art, Watchmen clearly isn't it. You're talking about a film that has 65,000 ten votes on this site and more than 300,000 votes of seven or more. That's just this site (and just the people who have bothered to vote, which I, for example, haven't). Do all of these people have something wrong with their brain (as you so charmingly put it)? If you have to tell yourself that in order for your "theory" to pan out then by all means carry on doing so, but don't expect to be taken seriously when all that boils down to is "these people who disagree with me must have something wrong with them" because that is your only point, regardless of how many different ways you find of saying it.

The only thing you have managed to demonstrate here is that you are incapable of accepting the inevitability of subjectivity in art. Taste is a spectrum and all your posts in this thread amount to is an attempt to deny that. What is the point of going in to detail about a sequence of the film when you insist with unwavering (and undeserved) certainty in your own rectitude that not a single thing about this film is less than absolutely awful and when you categorise anyone who disagrees with that as intellectually sub-normal? All I'm doing by continuing to respond to you is providing unwarranted legitimisation to your obviously illegitimate position. One of the better pieces of advice given to me regarding disagreements is to only argue with someone if they themselves have a point that is in some way valid or arguable. Since you do not, I am done here.

These are the only words I have, I'm stuck with them, stuck in them

[–] shatteredbluedreams 8 years ago

Your position here is so much more extreme than the supposition that Watchmen is a film that is not in all ways abhorrent and yet you cannot recognise this.

Your phrasing here is muddled.

"Your position here is so much more extreme than my supposition that Watchmen is a film that is not in all ways abhorrent, and yet you cannot recognise this."

Did you really mean "supposition"? What doubts are you having?

This whole thing actually goes beyond a discussion of this film, but as I implied earlier I am not inclined to have this broader conversation with you given how steadfastly you cling to your offensive and indefensible "theory".

If your ego can allow it, we can both discuss the film and have your broader conversation.

You are wasting my time by repeating what I already know you have said and what I have already responded to.

You have been muddying the waters between sophistry and incomprehension, so I've been thorough.

I said I enjoy countless movies with bad acting so the bad acting in Watchmen is not an impediment to my enjoyment. Your response? Maybe you "struggle" to see the bad acting in Watchmen. Clearly this is not the case as my whole point to begin with was that I see it, but like in many other films it does not overly detract from my ability to enjoy the film. Already answered, already dealt with, why do you carry on as if I hadn't said that?

You won't give specifics of what you do enjoy about Watchmen, so for now I'm feeling around in the dark. You hadn't yet conceded that Watchmen has bad acting. Now you have, so we can rule it out.

What did you find effective? Do I have to rule things one at a time, or can you simply tell me?

You are talking to me like I am a god damn moron which you apparently can't see at all, and yet you are accusing me of cognitive disabilities, albeit wrapped up in your disingenuous, mitigated way. Is any of this getting through to you at all or are you going to meet this post with yet another needlessly wordy repetition of your unsustainable position?

We all have cognitive limitations. There is no such thing as a perfect mind. I am not colourblind or dyslexic or oblivious to bad film making, but my brain has cognitive problems. I of course remain unaware of them. Everyone is like this. How can you know what your brain cannot know? Only with a great deal of observation of others and honest, scathing introspection can a person perhaps get some idea of their brain's limitations. Most people understandably don't have the spare time and energy.

If you think watching a movie with flaws and not letting them overly bother…

What are the flaws of Watchmen, and what are the virtues, as you see it? Tell me!

You have ducked the issue that you have completely misread the film's intentions regarding the Nixon caricature…

No, I addressed it directly by showing that the film is riddled with poor makeup and prosthetics, along with poor performances; I also said that the objective of Watchmen was not to caricature the world but to deconstruct the absurdity of the superhero concept by putting them in a real world with realistic consequences to their impact on that world. For example, Dr Manhattan is a critique of a Superman type character, suggesting that an invincible god-like man would become emotionally detached rather than remain a good old country boy.

Now you can address what I've said, but don't pretend I didn't say it.

There is such a thing as art so bad that no-one can enjoy it.

There is not a film on this site that someone has not rated a ten out of ten, and that's a ten, forget all the sixes and sevens of mediocre enjoyment.

The ratings are irrelevant. Everyone uses a different metric. For me, I give films I like a 10, films I find okay a 5, and films I don't like a 0 (but IMDB restrictions turn the 0 into a 1). Others regard a 10 to be the best of the best; others still think 10 is unreachable perfection; other ratings are merely shills or posting bots.

The sentence quoted above is pretty much as demonstrably untrue a statement as you could hope to make. Even if it were true (and it isn't) of some hopeless, pitiable and pathetic piece of art, Watchmen clearly isn't it. You're talking about a film that has 65,000 ten votes on this site and more than 300,000 votes of seven or more. That's just this site (and just the people who have bothered to vote, which I, for example, haven't). Do all of these people have something wrong with their brain (as you so charmingly put it)?

How many colourblind people are in the world? If 65,000 colourblind people all insist that blue is green, are they right?

If you have to tell yourself that in order for your "theory" to pan out then by all means carry on doing so, but don't expect to be taken seriously when all that boils down to is "these people who disagree with me must have something wrong with them" because that is your only point, regardless of how many different ways you find of saying it.

You complain of repetition yet still repeat this same fallacy.

I like a lot of movies that are undeniably well made, yet have a tone or emotional state that people don't like. I'm fine with that. If someone tells me they don't like Tierra (1996) or Labyrinth (1986), that's fine. If they tell me those films are poorly made, that's another matter.

I also like films that aren't so well made. I love Mac and Me (1988). It fills me with a wonderful nostalgic feeling when I watch it, despite the obvious problems with the movie.

I have no problem with subjectivity and other people liking different things to me.

Anyone telling me that green is blue is colourblind. Or then I am colourblind. We can't see the same colour as different colours without at least one of us having a cognitive issue that distorts our perception of colour.

Just look at the people on this board, or even this thread, saying "masterpiece". They are looking at (for example) Billy Crudup's acting and telling me it is masterful, when I see the same acting as cringeworthy in its self-awareness and forced emotion. At least one of us is having a cognitive issue that distorts our perception of emotional signals in other people.

The only thing you have managed to demonstrate here is that you are incapable of accepting the inevitability of subjectivity in art. Taste is a spectrum and all your posts in this thread amount to is an attempt to deny that.

A spectrum has limits. Things can lie outside of a spectrum. I've shown you this with many analogies. The taste of rotten food, the smell of sewerage, etc.

What is the point of going in to detail about a sequence of the film when you insist with unwavering (and undeserved) certainty in your own rectitude that not a single thing about this film is less than absolutely awful and when you categorise anyone who disagrees with that as intellectually sub-normal?

I understand your fear but I won't mock you. I'm not better than you.

You don't like repetition but I repeat this: colourblind people are not intellectually sub-normal. No-one has a perfect brain, and intelligent brains can have flaws.

In your anger you are being as hyperbolic as you accuse me of being. The film is completely awful but that doesn't mean that every single atom is flawed. For example, the film is in focus and the sound is synced to the image. There are many movies out there that can't get such basic technical issues right. And no-one likes those movies, I'm afraid. They languish in the amateur realm, never even getting to the point of an IMDB listing and an arbritrary number to measure their quality.

I like the acting of Jackie Earle Haley and Patrick Wilson for the most part, but they are so hamstrung with bad dialogue, stupid character actions, etc, that even those performances are not good. My initial post was about efficiency. Yes, there are good elements here and there, if you completely dissect the film with an intellectual scalpel, but the handful of good elements like being in focus or emotional realism from Patrick Wilson are more than offset by what the camera is focusing on or the stupid things that Wilson's character says.

It is possible to go through the movie frame by frame, documenting every single moment of colour and sound and how those things blend together, and such a dissection would leave a few chips of "good" next to a mountainous pile of "bad", but it's not practical. Look how many words were needed for a crude rendering of the opening scene. Should I have given the film credit for being in focus? Do we need to set the bar that low to avoid been acccused of hyperbole?

One of the better pieces of advice given to me regarding disagreements is to only argue with someone if they themselves have a point that is in some way valid or arguable. Since you do not, I am done here.

You need to present your argument to make your argument. I wonder if any Watchmen fan will stand up for the movie?

================================
A couple I know are getting married...
...the fools

[–] The_White_Hotel 8 years ago

Okay, listen I'm going to give this one more try as I can see you actually want me to say something here and, you know, I hate to disappoint, but could you please stop banging on about colours and the smell of sewage? The smell of sewage is not designed to entertain/please, people are not buying 'smell of sewage' cologne or defending the smell of sewage as compared to other smells. No one created the smell of sewage and thought 'you know what, people are going to LOVE this'. People do like the movie Watchmen. Do you see how that's different? Green and blue or yellow and green can be mistaken for each other. There's a point where one turns into the other and where that exact point is is debateable. You're claiming that one can definitively say what colour they are looking at, but that's not always the case and is indicative of a rigidity of thought that perhaps explains (but does not justify) your position on the matter of subjectivity (ie, you are incapable of understanding it). I would kindly ask you to drop these things as they are unhelpful comparisons and serve only to pad out your already excessive responses for no good reason. I would also ask that where possible you refrain from quoting large chunks of what I've said back to me, it's annoying and unnecessary. Just talk to me like a person please.

The reason I am not particularly inclined to go in to the specifics of what I like about this movie is nothing to do with what you will make of it but because it is not necessary to do so to make my point which does not rely on my personal opinion of Watchmen. My point is simply that your appraisal of the film is not definitive. You are claiming that no one could possibly enjoy this movie in any way without their having something wrong with them, some deficiency or disability or lack of critical facility. This is a fundamentally stupid thing to try to assert and you don't need my personal thoughts on the film in order to see this. There are people better at saying these things than me you can easily consult, people who, you know, are actually paid to say these things. Just google 'Watchmen review'. If you want I can go some way towards saving you the trouble.

Roger Ebert - Four stars (out of four)

The film is rich enough to be seen more than once. I plan to see it again, this time on IMAX, and will have more to say about it. I’m not sure I understood all the nuances and implications, but I am sure I had a powerful experience.

Peter Bradshaw (The Guardian) Three stars out of five

There is something exhilarating in the sheer madness of Watchmen: a wacky world turned upside down - famous people from history are always getting dream-like cameos. Costumed combatants flit across the screen in the company of Nixon, Henry Kissinger and Pat Buchanan: the Watchmen's existence pokes some sharp satire at the besuited, capeless warriors of conservative America. The synapse-frazzling ambition of Watchmen is impressive as it lurches from hyperreal Earth to photoreal Mars; it is dizzy, crazy and quite sexy - when it's not being self-indulgent and pointless. If it doesn't quite hang together or add up, or stick faithfully to the comic-book original, these offences aren't major. What a spectacle.

Time Magazine - No star rating but the headline

(A few) Moments of Greatness

Rolling Stone - two and a half out of four

there are also flashes of visual brilliance and performances, especially from Haley and Crudup, that drill deep into the novel's haunted soul... At its best, Snyder's movie gets at the symbolism of that smile button splashed with blood on the first Watchmen cover.

Cinema Blend - Nine out of ten

Any minor problems in Watchmen’s script are more a result of what’s missing than what’s been done... What matters most is that this is a movie with ambition, a movie with balls, a movie unafraid to tear across the screen leaving a trail of broken lives and unanswered, frightening questions in its wake. It revels in moral bankruptcy and delights in forcing on its characters into unmakeable choices. Stunning visuals exist in the service of ideas, not cheap thrills. It hinges not on some particular, awe-inspired action sequence, but on the quiet conversations of people struggling to save a world gone mad.

Need I go on? Because I could, as you know but are making an inexplicable attempt to deny, these are but a tiny fraction of thousands of positive reviews made by a broad range of people from the stupidest imdb user to, in Ebert, arguably the most prominent movie reviewer of the last two decades (and in Bradshaw, my own personal favourite). I acknowledge there are negative reviews as well but as you should know by now that is not something that I am trying to deny or that affects my argument. Your position relies on the idea that every single one of these people suffers from whatever made up malady you are attempting to blanket them under, a sort of blend of cinematic autism, dyslexia and emotional tone-deafness that beyond this thread I have never seen evidenced or suggested anywhere else ever. Do you not see how ridiculous that is? Do you really need to hear my thoughts about a particular sequence in the film to see how that could not possibly be true, and how instead these divergent responses must be down to something that for some reason you haven't considered (despite the fact that I have thoroughly explained it to you)?

In your next needlessly lengthy, rambling, desperate attempt to deny reality that will constitute your inevitable reply to this post please try at some point to focus on this one question; do you genuinely believe that all of the millions of people worldwide (which includes, as demonstrated above, professional, highly acclaimed and widely trusted careerist film-reviewers) that have written that Watchmen is anywhere between not completely awful and actually rather excellent suffer from this condition that you have made up?

These are the only words I have, I'm stuck with them, stuck in them

[–] shatteredbluedreams 8 years ago

The smell of sewage is not designed to entertain/please, people are not buying 'smell of sewage' cologne or defending the smell of sewage as compared to other smells. No one created the smell of sewage and thought 'you know what, people are going to LOVE this'. People do like the movie Watchmen. Do you see how that's different?

But a person without a sense of smell can enjoy hanging out near a sewage processing plant. There's one in my city that's in quite a picturesque location, just outside of the city surrounded by trees and stuff. Not a popular picnic spot, despite the beautiful location, cuz it smells like…

Green and blue or yellow and green can be mistaken for each other. There's a point where one turns into the other and where that exact point is is debateable. You're claiming that one can definitively say what colour they are looking at, but that's not always the case and is indicative of a rigidity of thought that perhaps explains (but does not justify) your position on the matter of subjectivity (ie, you are incapable of understanding it).

There are shades of colour that are halfway between two named colours. That's true. Colour is a spectrum, not a series of distinct points.

Dr Manhattan in the Watchmen movie is clearly blue, not green, so that's not relevant to this analogy.

Billy Crudup's performance as Dr Manhattan is as clearly bad as the blue colour of the character, if one can see shades of emotion. It's an awkward blue, not a stellar green.

I would also ask that where possible you refrain from quoting large chunks of what I've said back to me, it's annoying and unnecessary. Just talk to me like a person please.

I find quoted text easier than scrolling back and forth through a thread.

My point is simply that your appraisal of the film is not definitive.

To what degree?

Watchmen is a colour film released in 2009, directed by Zack Snyder. Definitive?

You're cutting off the definitive at a point where it displeases you.

You are claiming that no one could possibly enjoy this movie in any way without their having something wrong with them, some deficiency or disability or lack of critical facility. This is a fundamentally stupid thing to try to assert and you don't need my personal thoughts on the film in order to see this.

Most of what you write boils down to insults. You used 55 words in place of 2.

"You're stupid."

Why am I stupid to challenge the quality of Watchmen? Because it was released by a corporate studio? You wouldn't blink at me damning a terrible amateur film.

There are people better at saying these things than me you can easily consult, people who, you know, are actually paid to say these things.

They are paid to say those things, and therein lies the rub.

Just google 'Watchmen review'. If you want I can go some way towards saving you the trouble.

Roger Ebert - Four stars (out of four)

Peter Bradshaw (The Guardian) Three stars out of five

Time Magazine - No star rating but the headline "(A few) Moments of Greatness"

Rolling Stone - two and a half out of four

Cinema Blend - Nine out of ten

So which is it? Subjectivity or authority?

I thought Dr Manhattan was blue, but Ebert and Cinema Blend say he's green. Oh well, guess I'll go with them.

Or… I hate the colour blue, but Ebert and Cinema Blend say it's the best colour possible. Oh well, what do I know?

It doesn't matter who is saying something, but what is being said. Ebert has no authority over facts, and his taste is as subjective as everyone else's.

Your position relies on the idea that every single one of these people suffers from whatever made up malady you are attempting to blanket them under, a sort of blend of cinematic autism, dyslexia and emotional tone-deafness that beyond this thread I have never seen evidenced or suggested anywhere else ever. Do you not see how ridiculous that is? Do you really need to hear my thoughts about a particular sequence in the film to see how that could not possibly be true, and how instead these divergent responses must be down to something that for some reason you haven't considered (despite the fact that I have thoroughly explained it to you)?

You can froth on for another hundres paragraphs, but you still haven't said a single positive thing about Watchmen beyond that you like it. You haven't described anything in the film as done well.

You haven't even challenged the criticisms I've made, beyond the apologetic argument that Richard Nixon was done badly on purpose and the admission that old Silk Spectre was also done badly but without even an excuse for why that's okay.

Watchmen is not a popular film. It bombed horribly. It's not some obscure arthouse film. It got an international mainstream cinema release, promoted across all the usual media outlets. People have seen it and rejected it. Paid critics and a tiny group of people on the internet are the only ones with anything good to say about it.

My theory does not require the majority of people to be emotionally colourblind. Rather, as my initial post suggests, most people dismiss Watchmen as instantly as they would dismiss the idea that a computer's text-to-speech output is spoken by a real human. Normal people don't care that a handful of people have decided that the film is a masterpiece and that the rest of the world are the problem.

The irony of your appeal to numbers is that you've got it backwards, like all your arguments in this thread. Watchmen being a masterpiece, or even a good film, means the majority of people must somehow lack the ability to perceive the movie's positive qualities.

In your next needlessly lengthy, rambling, desperate attempt to deny reality that will constitute your inevitable reply to this post please try at some point to focus on this one question; do you genuinely believe that all of the millions of people worldwide (which includes, as demonstrated above, professional, highly acclaimed and widely trusted careerist film-reviewers) that have written that Watchmen is anywhere between not completely awful and actually rather excellent suffer from this condition that you have made up?

Yes.

================================
A couple I know are getting married...
...the fools

[–] The_White_Hotel 8 years ago

You're either trolling me or you're incapable of seeing something self-evident. Either way you're determined to deny reality and sanity dictates that I stop responding to you now.

These are the only words I have, I'm stuck with them, stuck in them

[–] shatteredbluedreams 8 years ago

sanity dictates that I stop responding to you now

Self-preservation and sanity are not the same thing.

================================
A couple I know are getting married...
...the fools

[–] christina-cb 7 years ago

Had a bit of fun reading Your banter here and just couldn´t help myself...just had to see what he thought was worth a 10...

Fun in Acapulco
Starship troopers
Die Hard
Star Trek....most of them including series
Elysium
Need for speed
Several romantic indian movies...and so on...

I know I shouldn´t have but he is so obviously out trolling... And You were so polite...most of the conversation lol

Anyway, as You have already stated, we all have different tastes and ways of looking at things. You should have ignored him from the start, would have been easier for You.. :) But You held Your own though...

[–] larosat 8 years ago

Just saw it with my family again for the 4 th time. Absolute masterpiece. You dint get it. Move along. The direction, script, acting, sets, effects, cinematography are pure bliss. Your taste simply sucks. Deal with it.

[–] Prince_of_IMDb 8 years ago

Masterpiece? lol. Hardly. I'm with the OP. There's something about the film that prevented me from enjoying it; it's no surprise most of the critics didn't like it. It's amazing how something near verbatim emulates but doesn't integrate, if that makes sense.

Zack's directorial finesse is just all style and no substance. People who consider it a masterpiece can't catch the nuances and lack of subtlety over his showmanship directing style.

I think it goes to show that, sometimes, not all 100% page-to-page renditions will always work out well. The movie suffered from poor hindsight in this respect and a choice of a mediocre director, to boot.

_______________________
PDBPO LEADER 

[–] shatteredbluedreams 8 years ago

Just saw it with my family again for the 4 th time. Absolute masterpiece. You dint get it. Move along. The direction, script, acting, sets, effects, cinematography are pure bliss. Your taste simply sucks. Deal with it.

Let's start with the acting.

Pure. Pure Bliss.

You found the Richard Nixon impersonation to be pure and blissful? Didn't you notice his awkward mannerisms and hammy, comical line delivery? You must have noticed the rubber nose and generally fake old age makeup look.

So the bliss isn't so pure.

What about Malin Akerman, Billy Crudup and Matthew Goode? Three terrible actors struggling to speak, much less emote convincingly, throughout the film.

Blissful?

Or perhaps you didn't get the multiple line flubs, forced attempts at gravitas... how about Billy Crudup's cringeworthy screaming as Dr Manhattan is surrounded by reporters? Didn't you get that?

Of course you didn't. Only people oblivous to bad acting can enjoy Watchmen. That's my theory.

Bad acting, and bad everything else. It's all wrong in this movie.

================================
A couple I know are getting married...
...the fools

[–] jmdm-90283 8 years ago

The film is damn near a masterpiece.

[–] Chopperbubba 8 years ago

Yep, a definite masterpiece.

[–] jacksakes 8 years ago

You know why you don't like this? Because of your missing heart.

You go on and on and drone about cinematography and intricate details of shots and how each frame is construed...

Meanwhile I'm watching the damn movie.

[–] jacksakes 8 years ago

I want to add something. Sorry to make it personal, but you're very weird in the way you write, ShatteredBlue. It makes me think you're just trolling for discussion.

It's like you don't have a shred of emotion in you. You're this computer outputting this long receipt of information. It's so very obvious this movie isn't for you.

So now you make an attempt to take a whole crowd of people and say they are wrong, confused, and just as misconstrued as what you see of this movie.

This is you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eD9A6d-uHs

[–] shatteredbluedreams 8 years ago

You know why you don't like this? Because of your missing heart.

You go on and on and drone about cinematography and intricate details of shots and how each frame is construed...

Meanwhile I'm watching the damn movie.

It's like you don't have a shred of emotion in you. You're this computer outputting this long receipt of information. It's so very obvious this movie isn't for you.

Hmm…

It is hard to articulate why it's so bad, since most of what's going on in a movie is intangible…

The camera framing and editing feel disjointed and odd.

The news voice sounds fake, caricatured.

The camera movements continue to feel off, and the Nixon performance looks and sounds rubbery and fake. Everything is staged, awkward, forced and most of all boring.

Is it meant to be satirical? Poignant? Funny?

The actors awkwardly stand…

This is the first cringeworthy moment of the movie.

These lines are delivered so badly that again you cringe, worse than before. The awkward zoom and continued use of "Unforgettable" amplify the awfulness.

This film is like listening to 2 hours and 33 minutes of a text-to-speech program reading a novel.

I can only explain away the fandom of this movie as people who aren't bothered by the disjointedness, the "wrongness", because they can't tell the difference.

I was only talking about the heart of the film, the emotion, the feel of it all.

You can't tell the difference between real and fake? Good, then this movie is just for you. The rest of the world isn't so easy to please.

================================
A couple I know are getting married...
...the fools

[–] SloppyJ30 7 years ago

I feel the need to butt in here to congratulate you for raising the time-honored art of Eloquent Douchebaggery to new levels. Really, good show, old chap. You've blown right through the humdrum "If you like/don't like Movie X, you must be Y" nonsense and gone straight for the nuclear option:

"My assessment of a film is not based on opinion, but on fact, and is therefore unassailable. Really, in this context, the words 'fact' and 'opinion' cease to have distinct meanings. Any foolhardy attempts by any third party to challenge my 'facts' are, by definition, driven by the ambitious delusions of a lesser or diminished mind lacking the capacity to See as I See. Now kindly excuse me whilst I masturbate furiously using only my mind. MMMMMMMM . . UNNNNNGGGHHHH!!"

So this is how "the rest of the world" views life, eh? I mean, it's reasonable to conclude that your attitude of Self-Evident, Presumptive Correctness permeates other aspects of your existence, too. I gots to say, it don't sound all that appealing, hoss. But then, my dog can't envy my ability to operate a toaster, can he? I can now empathize with my poor dog's toaster ignorance, so thanks for that.

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

I have meddled with the primal forces of nature and I will atone.

[–] shatteredbluedreams 7 years ago

I feel the need to butt in here to congratulate you for raising the time-honored art of Eloquent Douchebaggery to new levels. Really, good show, old chap...

"My assessment of a film is not based on opinion, but on fact, and is therefore unassailable. Really, in this context, the words 'fact' and 'opinion' cease to have distinct meanings…"

So this is how "the rest of the world" views life, eh? I mean, it's reasonable to conclude that your attitude of Self-Evident, Presumptive Correctness permeates other aspects of your existence, too. I gots to say, it don't sound all that appealing, hoss. But then, my dog can't envy my ability to operate a toaster, can he? I can now empathize with my poor dog's toaster ignorance, so thanks for that.

A few months ago, in another thread on another board, I wrote just the right answer for your wriggling hole of ideas.

They're facts. You may dispute the validity of those facts if you'd like.

I mean, either someone is a fraud or they're not, right? So that's a correct or incorrect fact.

Something is either out of tune or in tune, right?

Bad acting, clunky cinematography and empty storytelling may seem to be aesthetically preferential, but what I'm qualifying as bad, clunky and empty is either factual or not. The language gets murky because of the difficulties of describing the intangibles of art.

And lastly, being an A movie is a fact or not, even if sometimes it's a grey issue. Not with these films though. All big Hollywood productions, released in thousands of theatres worldwide, hyped by the Hollywood media machine. And then worst? Well, if all the other elements are facts, then a movie can't get any worse.

Since you're refusing to actually offer your opinion, I can't say whether this applies to you or not, but fans of those films are fans of bad films. Yes, that's when subjectivity can effectively invert the meanings of "good" and "bad", so what we are left with is the factual statement that fans of those films are fans of out of tune, clunkily made, etc films. In Labyrinth (1986), Sir Didymus couldn't smell the bog of eternal stench, so the air was sweet for him. An inability to perceive certain things can change the perception of facts significantly.

That's not where we're going though. You just think you're entitled to proclaim something as well made because you like it. You're wrong, and that's a fact.

Labyrinth Didymus "None may pass without my permission"
https://youtu.be/dFAwRulOnPc

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2316204/board/nest/260843938?d=262029921#262029921
(Re: I loved Prometheus. Watched it 8 times so far. Wanna Fite?)

When everyone but you thinks you're wrong, then either you're possessed of rare insight, or missing some level of perception. All cult members think they have the Secret, the Truth.

That's why you don't get posts where a person says they understand that Watchmen is loathed, but they personally find it appealing. No, it's always that the world is wrong, the world is unable to understand.

If it makes you feel any better, most people subscribe to some cult of thought or taste in some aspect of their life. Not normally something as obviously terrible as Watchmen, but still, it's a common need to feel special and superior. So relax, you're ironically pedestrian in your need to feel exclusive.

Lastly, it's cute that you start out by recognising my eloquence then proceed to attempt to headbutt me. Don't compliment someone on their fighting skills then attack them, are you a masochist?

================================
A couple I know are getting married...
...the fools

[–] SloppyJ30 7 years ago

Something is either out of tune or in tune, right?

Of course, and . . ? "Tone" is something that can be measured as objectively as arithmetic. That example is nothing more than clumsy trickeration and has nothing to do with your mindset. Just because Quality A can be measured and objectively evaluated doesn't mean Qualities B-Z can. I can prove that my favorite singer's pitch while singing "It's Raining Men" is near-perfect, but I can't prove that my favorite band "totally rocks," which it does.

Bad acting, clunky cinematography and empty storytelling may seem to be aesthetically preferential, but what I'm qualifying as bad, clunky and empty is either factual or not. The language gets murky because of the difficulties of describing the intangibles of art.

Self-evident balderdash, and you know it. You can't credibly claim that something is completely factually true but in the same breath admit you can't even present its "truth" with anything resembling precise language. You almost sound like an evangelical . . you know Jesus has saved you because you know Jesus has saved you, and that's just the way it is, even if you can't explain it. The "intangibles of art" are not differential calculus equations that you just lack the capacity to articulate.

Since you're refusing to actually offer your opinion, I can't say whether this applies to you or not, but fans of those films are fans of bad films. Yes, that's when subjectivity can effectively invert the meanings of "good" and "bad", so what we are left with is the factual statement that fans of those films are fans of out of tune, clunkily made, etc films.

So "clunkily made" is now a specific, universally understood (at least by the wise) phrase. Huh. How does one measure "clunkiness"? Have you invented a workable clunkometer? Are we talking, like a 360 degree scale, a letter grade, a simple decimal scale, or something more elegant? I picture you "enjoying" a movie in your living room, brow furrowed, furiously scribbling notes and equations as you move towards Final Judgement ("I assign Ernest Becomes a Scientologist a CM score of A-(16).33-J!"). And, again, a note sung or played is either in tune or out of tune. A film or a scene in a film is not. You've got lighting, camera angle, music, makeup, acting, SFX etc. etc. all working in concert. I'm wondering how you acquired the imaginary skill necessary to process all this into some theoretical grade without opinion ever entering into it.

That's not where we're going though. You just think you're entitled to proclaim something as well made because you like it. You're wrong, and that's a fact.

Anyone's "entitled" to proclaim anything. Claim Superman IV: The Quest for Peace is the greatest comic-book adaptation ever made. Claim The Third Man is terminally boring hackwork. Nothing you or I can do about it. You seem keen on exerting whatever authority the voices in your head have granted you; good luck with that.

When everyone but you thinks you're wrong, then either you're possessed of rare insight, or missing some level of perception. All cult members think they have the Secret, the Truth.

That's why you don't get posts where a person says they understand that Watchmen is loathed, but they personally find it appealing. No, it's always that the world is wrong, the world is unable to understand.

You're clowning me, right bro? "Everyone"? Watchmen is the definition of a polarizing movie, but it doesn't even matter what movie we're talking about. It's never true that "Everyone but you hates/likes/loves Movie X." I have no idea what posts you do or don't get (I probably haven't glanced at a WM thread in years), but I'm pretty certain it's not one poor sap out there against the Big Mean World. And you've got some stones criticizing the "why doesn't the world understand?" crowd, because that's exactly what you're doing, just in a more insufferably smug way.

If it makes you feel any better, most people subscribe to some cult of thought or taste in some aspect of their life. Not normally something as obviously terrible as Watchmen, but still, it's a common need to feel special and superior. So relax, you're ironically pedestrian in your need to feel exclusive.

Feelin' fine, champ, but thank you for your concern. How are you? Besides confused, I mean . . I didn't even know I had the "need to feel exclusive." You seem to be the one hovering above the rabble, dripping with disdain while dispensing drams of wisdom. I'm with the rabble. Funny word, that . . "rabble."

I wouldn't fit any rational description of a "Watchmen Cult Member"; I just think it's a pretty cool spectacle to take in every couple of years. I think I've seen it three times. I've never prayed to it. I've never dressed up as any of the characters. I don't own a copy of the novel. I don't sigh like a schoolgirl when I see Zack Snyder's face or Dr. Manhattan's wang. It's not anywhere near my personal top 50 films. It's just a movie. I haven't assigned it a numeric rating or run it through my movie mass spectrometer or clunkometer or whatever. I'll leave such efforts to They That Hover Above.

Lastly, it's cute that you start out by recognising my eloquence then proceed to attempt to headbutt me. Don't compliment someone on their fighting skills then attack them, are you a masochist?

I may or may not be a masochist, and if I headbutted you, I'm sorry . . I was aiming for your balls. Maybe you're a short li'l fella? If my recognition had been completely genuine, you'd have a stronger point. You put more thought into your posts than the typical "Star Wars Force Awakens is kiddie movie you suck JJ Abrams is hack LOL" joker, so I thought it at least worth responding. I guess you can take that as a compliment, but is eloquence in the service of trollery really eloquence at all? I grant you Level 5 Troll status (there are only six levels on my scale), and you're welcome. Ebert once said of Armond White that he is "indeed a troll, but a knowing one." Armond's the best/worst, but in the world of amateurs, you're pretty solid. You know exactly how full of $h|+ you are, but you never blink. Well done.

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

I have meddled with the primal forces of nature and I will atone.

[–] shatteredbluedreams 7 years ago

Something is either out of tune or in tune, right?

Of course, and . . ?

And now we agree on facts, and base our opinions on those facts. We have aesthetic tastes that derive from our observing of facts (normally near identical) and our unique genetic and personal history.

So you might like rock, and I might like jazz, but neither of us like out of tune music, unless we are tone deaf.

The crux of your argument is over already, but you want to brush it aside with "and…?" Good try buddy.

"Tone" is something that can be measured as objectively as arithmetic.

You're going to have to let go of the concept of objectivity. It doesn't exist. Everything is experienced subjectively.

In many cases subjectivity is irrelevant. For example, we both agree that fire is hot, and we can see that by the way we both recoil from flames. Yet neither of us will experience the flames identically. Maybe I've been out in the cold, and maybe you have nerve damage, or you're drunk, or I'm depressed, so we both perceive differening levels of heat from the flames. Objects can never experience reality. Nothing is experienced objectively.

I can prove that my favorite singer's pitch while singing "It's Raining Men" is near-perfect, but I can't prove that my favorite band "totally rocks," which it does.

And if you're tone deaf, you'll insist that your favourite singer rocks regardless. I am saying that Watchmen is out of tune. Presumably you are not.

You can't credibly claim that something is completely factually true but in the same breath admit you can't even present its "truth" with anything resembling precise language. You almost sound like an evangelical . . you know Jesus has saved you because you know Jesus has saved you, and that's just the way it is, even if you can't explain it. The "intangibles of art" are not differential calculus equations that you just lack the capacity to articulate.

Describe the colour yellow.

I just compared you with a member of a cult. Already trying to turn it around, like I'm not going to notice! You are the one with a secret truth that cannot be shown to non-believers. The only question is why…

So "clunkily made" is now a specific, universally understood (at least by the wise) phrase. Huh. How does one measure "clunkiness"? Have you invented a workable clunkometer? Are we talking, like a 360 degree scale, a letter grade, a simple decimal scale, or something more elegant? I picture you "enjoying" a movie in your living room, brow furrowed, furiously scribbling notes and equations as you move towards Final Judgement ("I assign Ernest Becomes a Scientologist a CM score of A-(16).33-J!"). And, again, a note sung or played is either in tune or out of tune. A film or a scene in a film is not. You've got lighting, camera angle, music, makeup, acting, SFX etc. etc. all working in concert. I'm wondering how you acquired the imaginary skill necessary to process all this into some theoretical grade without opinion ever entering into it.

The language surrounding film is still evolving, which is why we use words from other aspects of life, especially aesthetic areas like music and food.

So yeah, what I mean by a film being out of tune is either happening or not, just like with music. Yes, films are more complex, but do you really need me to address all the elements that make up a scene? Can't we just say that it didn't work, the same way a piece of music is out of tune? No? You aren't up to it?

As a fan of Watchmen, you obviously aren't, but you look as silly as if you deny that a lemon is yellow. Any child can point out something yellow, whether you are colourblind or not. And people can see the wrongness in movies like Watchmen, whether you possess the faculties to discern or not.

Putting on a tantrum because you cannot discriminate anything more complex than whether a film is in stereo or not, or the running time, doesn't change the finer details of the film. The facts are the facts are the facts, same for everyone. How you feel about those facts is the only thing that is up to you.

When your feeling about those facts is so out of step with everyone else but a handful of other cultists, all of whom believe they see a secret truth due to their own superiority, then the obvious answer is that something is missing in all of you. Or, alternatively, that you are all in fact a cult of geniuses who can perceive perfection where everyone else only sees mediocrity and unintentional hilarity.

Anyone's "entitled" to proclaim anything.

No son, and you need to let go of that idea too. No-one is entitled to an opinion about anything unless they have made an effort to understand what they are talking about. Ignorance is not an entitlement.

Watchmen is the definition of a polarizing movie…

No, it's a cult movie. Most people are indifferent. They saw, they dismissed, they forgot. Only those revisiting the movie, usually because of love for the comic, are left with negative feelings towards it.

I'm pretty certain it's not one poor sap out there against the Big Mean World. And you've got some stones criticizing the "why doesn't the world understand?" crowd, because that's exactly what you're doing, just in a more insufferably smug way.

It effectively is. Try reading the board. Try reading the wider internet. You'll find fans have that me-against-the-world attitude because Watchmen is maligned by everyone who bothers to say anything about it, and forgotten by everyone else.

This isn't a general movie situation. Most movies, even most Hollywood movies, are not as terrible as Watchmen. Watchmen is one of those movies so bad that it's hard to believe it's an A-list movie at all. If not for the glossy cameras, it would be getting watched by those ironic B-movie channels like Red Letter Media.

It's a movie with no redeeming features, hours upon hours of awful.

The world does understand what I'm saying, inherently. They turn away from Watchmen just as they turn off tone deaf musicians. They don't bother to analyse it because it's fait accompli for normal people to dismiss scaldingly awful art.

You may look around at the garbage that passes for culture and think that the world does accept awful art, but that's because you cannot see how bad Watchmen truly is.

I wouldn't fit any rational description of a "Watchmen Cult Member"; I just think it's a pretty cool spectacle to take in every couple of years. I think I've seen it three times. I've never prayed to it.

Obviously this is your attempt at being witty, again, but it shows a literalism that suggests autism, which is a trend in fans of these beyond-awful movies. Have a look around at the fan bases for movies like Prometheus, Avatar: The Last Airbender, and Southland Tales. You'll find the Rain Man shining through.

I may or may not be a masochist…

It's more that you can't feel pain. I guess you'll pass out from blood loss eventually.

Ebert once said…

Good grief. I hope you pass out soon, this is so embarrassing.

================================
A couple I know are getting married...
...the fools

[–] SloppyJ30 7 years ago

So you might like rock, and I might like jazz, but neither of us like out of tune music, unless we are tone deaf.

The crux of your argument is over already, but you want to brush it aside with "and…?" Good try buddy . . You're going to have to let go of the concept of objectivity. It doesn't exist. Everything is experienced subjectively.

In many cases subjectivity is irrelevant. For example, we both agree that fire is hot . .

The desperation pouring from these "points" is palpable. Fire is "hot" compared to what? Compared to comfortable room temperature for humans? Compared to the surface of Mercury? That's subjectivity. But I can measure and quantify heat when appropriate. As I've already said, you can measure musical tone, too. You can't "measure" a movie. You seem to operate in some Twilight Zone were subjectivity and objectivity are mashed together in to your own bizarre concoction that only you understand. According to you, everything's subjective, yet art can be objectively pronounced "Good" or "Bad." Not to steal your phrase, but nice try, buddy. That's next-level doublespeak.

I just compared you with a member of a cult. Already trying to turn it around, like I'm not going to notice! You are the one with a secret truth that cannot be shown to non-believers. The only question is why…

Good job, sport, noticing something I put on the page in black and white. Nothing goes over your head; your reflexes are too fast! To match your level on this one, I'm reduced to "Nuh-uh! YOU'RE the one with a secret truth that cannot be shown to unbelievers!" I'm getting a little worried here, though . . you actually believe what your saying, don't you? You literally believe you're the "normal" one, if that's even a thing, and I'm spiraling off into alternate dimensions. And the fact that I think this is simply because I lack the capacity to operate on your level, amiright? Well, you may be correct.

So yeah, what I mean by a film being out of tune is either happening or not, just like with music. Yes, films are more complex, but do you really need me to address all the elements that make up a scene? Can't we just say that it didn't work, the same way a piece of music is out of tune? No? You aren't up to it?

No, for the love of all that is holy, please don't. I'm most definitely not up to it. Again, you're completely contradicting yourself. A "piece of music" is not typically out of tune, unless it was written that way. Someone playing an instrument or singing may be off, and, again, that's measurable and quantifiable if someone wants to go to the trouble of measuring and quantifying. But a whole movie, or even a scene? What seems "off" to Perfectly Rational Human A may seem inconsequential, or like a stroke of genius to Perfectly Rational Human B. You act like we're working in binary; the movie is either "out of tune" or "in tune." That would simplify life, I'll grant you that.

As a fan of Watchmen, you obviously aren't, but you look as silly as if you deny that a lemon is yellow. Any child can point out something yellow, whether you are colourblind or not. And people can see the wrongness in movies like Watchmen, whether you possess the faculties to discern or not.

I'm kinda sorta a fan. I'm just not a FAN.

Another paragraph, another terrible analogy. Simply describing a lemon as "yellow" is sufficient in any conversation one might realistically expect to ever have about lemons. Yet, "yellow" is really a fairly vague term that nevertheless gets the job done about 99% of the time. In my circles, lemons are not often a topic of lively debate, nor are they typically subjected to scholarly deconstruction. Maybe in your world, they are. Different strokes and all. Who can say? Not this guy.

No-one writes about the color of lemons for a living. No-one pays hard-earned shekels to look at lemons for two hours in a dark room. Few will care to determine if the lemon falls into the category of "royal yellow" or "safety yellow" or attempt to pin down its color coordinates. Before you accuse me of being too literal again, you could swap out lemons for a million other non-art items and the point would remain: Stating "this lemon is yellow" is not remotely the same as saying "This movie sucks/is out of tune."

When your feeling about those facts is so out of step with everyone else but a handful of other cultists, all of whom believe they see a secret truth due to their own superiority, then the obvious answer is that something is missing in all of you. Or, alternatively, that you are all in fact a cult of geniuses who can perceive perfection where everyone else only sees mediocrity and unintentional hilarity.

I'm kind of stuck on this one, because you're so self-evidently incorrect, and to borrow again from your playbook, that's just a fact. There are plenty of films out there that are the targets of overwhelming scorn, to the point that categorizing their fans as "cultists" might make sense. Battlefield Earth. The Room. Troll 2. Of more recent vintage, Fantastic Four and possibly Warcraft, unless you're Chinese. Watchmen isn't even close to matching those movies in terms of "Universal Joke" status. It's just . . not. Yes, those that hate it seem to really really hate it, but it's not like you have to go digging to find positive reviews, both professional and amateur. Are you really so arrogant that you automatically dismiss every single positive (even mildly so) review of some movie as the product of some mentally deficient or brainwashed cultist?

No-one is entitled to an opinion about anything unless they have made an effort to understand what they are talking about. Ignorance is not an entitlement.

I know not from whence you hail, but where I live anyone has the right, with very few exceptions, to say whatever they want about anything. What I'm not entitled to is your acceptance of my opinion. Ironically, I've had debates with others where I pretty much assumed your role, but I was less strident by about 80%. To feel your opinion on any given topic should have some weight with those receiving it requires you have some experience, and (more to the point) some interest in said topic. I think you're just using the word "entitled" incorrectly. I'm entitled to believe you are the product of your mother's barnyard tryst with a mule, and guess what? No authority I recognize can force me to disbelieve it. Sorry, old chap . . or should I say "HEEE-HAWW!"

But that's a silly example. I'm reasonably sure you're of human parentage and are loved by those who see past the douchey exterior to the frightened little boy within.

. . it shows a literalism that suggests autism, which is a trend in fans of these beyond-awful movies. Have a look around at the fan bases for movies like Prometheus, Avatar: The Last Airbender, and Southland Tales. You'll find the Rain Man shining through.

Oh, dear. You were doing so well, or at least well enough. Then you had to go and equate movie fandom, no matter the movie, with an actual, diagnoseable condition. Then again, do the autistic know they're autistic? I mean, those who suffer from Asberger's often do, but I'm not sure about the autistic. Am I autistic? Now I'm worried, and there are 87 toothpicks on the floor.

Good grief. I hope you pass out soon, this is so embarrassing.

Oh, come on now, be nice, Amateur Armond. You say you're embarrassed, but I feel like I just might be one of your best friends in the world.

Great, now I'm depressed . . and possibly autistic.

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

I have meddled with the primal forces of nature and I will atone.

[–] shatteredbluedreams 7 years ago

I can measure and quantify heat when appropriate.

Appropriateness is subjective. Sorry.

You can't "measure" a movie. You seem to operate in some Twilight Zone were subjectivity and objectivity are mashed together in to your own bizarre concoction that only you understand. According to you, everything's subjective, yet art can be objectively pronounced "Good" or "Bad." Not to steal your phrase, but nice try, buddy. That's next-level doublespeak.

No, nothing is objective. What is bad for me is good for you, clearly.

The reason Watchmen is bad for me is because the acting is unconvincing, the cinematography contrived, and so on.

You won't tell me that you find those things good, yet you do find them good, so that's where something in you is massively jarring your subjective experience to be misaligned with the normal aesthetic experience of watching the movie.

As I've said before, it's a bit like a colourblind person watching the movie. Same movie, two different experiences. Colour vs black/white.

You watch the movie in emotional black/white. You can't see all the cringeworthy colour in its resplendent glory.

If there was a machine you could measure the movie with, then you would get a readout that tells you the problems, but it would be as much use as a colourblind person measuring the chroma. They still can't see it.

you're completely contradicting yourself. A "piece of music" is not typically out of tune, unless it was written that way.

I guess autotune doesn't exist then. Why would it? There are no bad singers out there. Music is only ever done badly on purpose…

But a whole movie, or even a scene? What seems "off" to Perfectly Rational Human A may seem inconsequential, or like a stroke of genius to Perfectly Rational Human B. You act like we're working in binary; the movie is either "out of tune" or "in tune." That would simplify life, I'll grant you that.

Perfectly Rational Human A + B. That's your approach, great.

Back to the colourblind analogy. A person can be colourblind and perfectly rational.

I'm kinda sorta a fan. I'm just not a FAN.

Don't quibble. You're defending the movie, you're a fan.

No-one writes about the color of lemons for a living. No-one pays hard-earned shekels to look at lemons for two hours in a dark room. Few will care to determine if the lemon falls into the category of "royal yellow" or "safety yellow" or attempt to pin down its color coordinates. Before you accuse me of being too literal again, you could swap out lemons for a million other non-art items and the point would remain: Stating "this lemon is yellow" is not remotely the same as saying "This movie sucks/is out of tune."

You are being too literal. You object to the contrast between the simplicity of declaring a lemon yellow and the complexity of declaring a movie to be unwatchably bad. Okay, but the contrast is the point.

There are plenty of films out there that are the targets of overwhelming scorn, to the point that categorizing their fans as "cultists" might make sense. Battlefield Earth. The Room. Troll 2. Of more recent vintage, Fantastic Four and possibly Warcraft, unless you're Chinese. Watchmen isn't even close to matching those movies in terms of "Universal Joke" status. It's just . . not. Yes, those that hate it seem to really really hate it, but it's not like you have to go digging to find positive reviews, both professional and amateur. Are you really so arrogant that you automatically dismiss every single positive (even mildly so) review of some movie as the product of some mentally deficient or brainwashed cultist?

Battlefield Earth is an A movie; The Room and Troll 2 are B movies. The latter only have ironic fans.

B-Earth is just like Watchmen. It's an A level production that doesn't work at all, and is embarrassing on every level. The reason B-Earth is scorned so much is because of Scientology and Travolta's attempted entrepreneurialism. Without those two political external elements, it would be treated just like Watchmen.

Unlike bad B movies, B-Earth does have a handful of sincere fans, and you should read what they have to say. They echo your sentiments on Watchmen, mirror them perfectly. Same excuses for why the rest of the world hates the movie, same rationale for being the handful of fans.

If you want to describe an inability to perceive emotional coherence as "mentally deficient" then that's your call. I guess it is a disadvantage in the real world. You struggle to read people in real life too I guess, so you're easily conned. Quite an evolutionary disadvantage. And I guess your taste in interior decoration and stuff is also poor. But that's perhaps not as big a flaw.

I know not from whence you hail, but where I live anyone has the right, with very few exceptions, to say whatever they want about anything.

No-one has any rights. There is only power. People are only told they have rights when some of those rights are going to be curtailed or outright violated. It's a legal fiction, a moral fiction, a social fiction. You want to be clever? Time to shed the intellectual myths of your childhood.

I'm reasonably sure you're of human parentage and are loved by those who see past the douchey exterior to the frightened little boy within.

I have a horrible emotional relationship with my parents. Fear is a complex thing. Rather than say "I am frightened" or not, rather fear is a present element in almost everything I feel and encounter. Emotions and cognition are not coloured blocks being put into geometric shapes; they are a dynamic panoramic mural enveloping everything we encounter.

Is your writing an attempt to insult me? If I remember correctly, I would have been insulted by that sentence when I was about 2, had I been able to understand it. I would have been amused by it from about 2 to 17, and now it just seems strange. It is difficult for me to accept that an adult human can operate at such a clumsy cerebral level yet still be able to navigate the world enough to operate a computer, pay for an internet connection etc.

Humans are specialists. We don't all develop every aspect of our selves, especially the aspects of our minds, to an equal level. It requires more time than there is in a day, more energy than we can contain in our bodies. Maybe that's why you can be an adult in one aspect yet a toddler in another.

Then you had to go and equate movie fandom, no matter the movie, with an actual, diagnoseable condition.

The movie does matter, but that's your literalism flaring up again. We're not arguing taste, we're arguing quality.

This is not strawberries vs oranges. It's strawberries vs mouldy strawberries.

================================
A couple I know are getting married...
...the fools

[–] JJMLitjens 8 years ago

This movie was awfull

[–] enfieldboy 7 years ago

You rated Casper 10/10

Need i say more

[–] GingerVitus 7 years ago

I like the movie, but agree that the opening sequence is terrible. It's disjointed and awkward, and hard on the eyes and ears. In my theater, a lot of people laughed at Nixon because he looked and sounded so ridiculous.

"Come on, Skip. It's go-go, not cry-cry!"

[–] enfieldboy 7 years ago

I thought the opening "Times They Are A-Changing" sequence was fantastic.

[–] shatteredbluedreams 7 years ago

You rated Casper 10/10

Need i say more

You couldn't possibly say any less.

================================
A couple I know are getting married...
...the fools

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] generationofswine 7 years ago

Honestly, I think a lot of people don't like the movie because the themes are hard to grasp. For everyone else I think the concept of how power effects the world and the different moralities that people that wield that power have made for a beautiful story.

The distaste, I really feel, is all in if the key elements are grasped. It also requires a little knowledge of history, which, reading through the post from the people that disliked it, wasn't entirely there. The viewers needed and understanding of the cold war and didn't exactly get it because the knowledge wasn't their for them to draw on.

Most of the "I don't like it, I don't get it" posts are mostly focused on the parallels to the Cold War and real world history that have all seemed to go over a lot of the viewer's heads.

It's a film that requires some background knowledge.

"Few people understand the psychology of dealing with a highway traffic cop."