|
Post by MozMode on Mar 7, 2009 9:08:55 GMT -5
For those interested, Plugged In Online, Watchmen review. As usual they decry the sex and violence, then go off on what can be some of the most idiotic complaints I've ever seen put up in a review. Wow, sex were people were actually undressed and enjoying it!! All I have to say is that if this is all that required for the reviewer to think that the scene was graphic: Dude, you need to see, or partake of, a lot more sex. I saw the movie last night and the above mentioned scene comes nowhere close to my defination of graphic. Some of the more silly complaints, So, drinking wine at dinner and having a beer are now things that should not be seen in films? That eliminates about 99% of my DVD collection. Also, the movie takes place in 1985. In the real world their were quite a few people taking, IIRC, Laotril. Even though it was illegeal in the real world US. Anyway, The review is filled with inaccurcies ands out of context descriptions. My opinion, its not a superhero film for children. If fact, the threater I saw it in had warning posters around the ticket box telling parents that it there was graphic violence, language, and nudity in the film. But if your over 18 and can handle it, IMO, Watchmen is an excellent post modern look at superheroes and well worth the time to see. A more applicable complaint about the Halleujah scene is how the music and scene don't even mix up together. Oh gawd, right?? That was such an odd scene. Nevermind the thrusting and shit, the music completely didn't fit. The rest of the movie was okay soundtrack wise. That particular scene though...eek.
|
|
|
Post by ninjacat11 on Mar 7, 2009 12:42:43 GMT -5
A more applicable complaint about the Halleujah scene is how the music and scene don't even mix up together. Oh gawd, right?? That was such an odd scene. Nevermind the thrusting and shit, the music completely didn't fit. The rest of the movie was okay soundtrack wise. That particular scene though...eek. I loved the rest of the movie, but I just had to laugh throughout the entire sex scene.
|
|
|
Post by peanutfan on Mar 7, 2009 13:11:42 GMT -5
Oh gawd, right?? That was such an odd scene. Nevermind the thrusting and shit, the music completely didn't fit. The rest of the movie was okay soundtrack wise. That particular scene though...eek. I loved the rest of the movie, but I just had to laugh throughout the entire sex scene. I thought the music fit perfectly. Two people falling in love and helping the guy recover his mojo, especially with a girl as smokin' as the Spectre? I know I'd be singing "Hallelujah!" in his place!
|
|
|
Post by doomie 22 on Mar 7, 2009 17:18:22 GMT -5
I saw it last night. I don't think anyone in the theater really cared. It's not like every shot of Dr. Manhattan was an extreme closeup of his genitals.
|
|
|
Post by Angel Kaida on Mar 7, 2009 17:22:09 GMT -5
I loved the rest of the movie, but I just had to laugh throughout the entire sex scene. I thought the music fit perfectly. Two people falling in love and helping the guy recover his mojo, especially with a girl as smokin' as the Spectre? I know I'd be singing "Hallelujah!" in his place! The music throughout the movie made me want to kill everyone. Except when Sound of Silence came on; then I was just like singing it in my head and ignoring the movie.
|
|
wottockhunt
Junior Member
With apologies to Ian Leino.
Posts: 73
|
Post by wottockhunt on Mar 7, 2009 18:06:50 GMT -5
About the RR quote that said "this movie is not for upright Christians". I swear at first glance the quote read "this movie is not for uptight Christians".
|
|
wottockhunt
Junior Member
With apologies to Ian Leino.
Posts: 73
|
Post by wottockhunt on Mar 7, 2009 18:13:41 GMT -5
The entire RR thread is worth reading. Uh, well, you know what I mean.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 7, 2009 18:14:39 GMT -5
About the RR quote that said "this movie is not for upright Christians". I swear at first glance the quote read "this movie is not for uptight Christians". Is there a difference?
|
|
wottockhunt
Junior Member
With apologies to Ian Leino.
Posts: 73
|
Post by wottockhunt on Mar 7, 2009 18:25:34 GMT -5
Hmm... I guess not. Altho' not all Christians are uptight/upright, but that wasn't what you asked
|
|
|
Post by clockworkgirl21 on Mar 7, 2009 23:43:02 GMT -5
Okay, I am SO glad I didn't go see this with my dad, like we planned. I know it's immature, but I would die of embarrassment if I saw a movie with a sex scene and a penis with either parent. I turn bright red when either of my parents mention sex in any way.
I guess this is something I'll have to see on my own...
|
|
|
Post by Paradox on Mar 7, 2009 23:46:36 GMT -5
About the RR quote that said "this movie is not for upright Christians". I swear at first glance the quote read "this movie is not for uptight Christians". Is there a difference? I strongly object to this comment. While I have been known to spend extended periods of time in a horizontal position, I am usually sitting, if not standing, upright. I keep slouching to a minimum. This comment shows an astonishing prejudice against moderate and liberal Christians who nonetheless strive to maintain good posture.
|
|
|
Post by gadfly on Mar 8, 2009 21:33:25 GMT -5
For the record, I loved both Passion of the Christ and Watchmen, though the violence in both movies made me wince (as in "Shit, that looks painful"). Seriously, though, Baehr needs to get over himself and find something that he can legitimately whine about. The original Watchmen comic had as much nudity, sex, violence, and language as the movie did. The movie was rated R, which means RESTRICTED for a reason. I would never take a small kid to Watchmen (nor Passion of the Christ, for that matter) because it is not APPROPRIATE. Something being "not appropriate for a small child to watch" does not then translate in my mind to "slap it with an NC-17, which is the box office kiss of death". Watchmen is an adult movie for adult people; that doesn't make it immoral. And yes, I'm a Christian, I don't scream and cover my eyes whenever I see a naked guy's dong, and I think that knee-jerk reactions like Mr. Baehr's are the height of misguided, unthinking prudery and do nothing to make Christians look like even half-way reasonable people to other Christians or non-Christians. In other words, he should sit down, research what the hell he's talking about, think about whether a naked dong is really offensive or not (seriously, most normal children don't give a crap about nudity because GUESS WHAT, they love being nude and checking out their own bodies, including their genitals), and until he has done these things so that he can form a reasonable, informed, enlightened opinion (including realizing that the vast majority of classical art from antiquity to the present day has nudity and sexual themes), he should shut up and quit making Christians look like prudes. Oh, and for the record? Rorschach in a sleeveless shirt is the hottest thing in the movie. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Paradox on Mar 8, 2009 22:09:53 GMT -5
The problem is that most Americans have become completely incapable to separate nudity from sex. In their minds, any display of the nude human form is sexual in nature and thus pornographic. I've seen TV news stations running baby pictures of girls blur out their non-existent baby tits. This is how fucked up we've become about this. I blame the puritans.
|
|
Sayna
Junior Member
Posts: 70
|
Post by Sayna on Mar 9, 2009 1:16:56 GMT -5
These are probably the same sicko's I used to see being extra careful about covering a little baby's genitals in photos. I used to work at a photo lab and sometimes there would be roll after roll, hundreds of pictures of someone's little child. They are eating and bathing and so on. So the bathing pics--I get it, baby's first bath, relatives there to see him, probably some for the first time and yada yada so I get WHY they are doing it--all feature the baby with a carefully placed washcloth over it's "shame". I've heard the defense; "I don't want some pervert getting sick thoughts looking at MY baby..." Actually, I think that they're afraid that people would call them perverts. I don't know if it's true, but I've heard of cases where parents almost lost their kids over naked baby pictures. People try to charge them with child pornography and such when it's just a naked baby in a totally nonsexual context. Also, I know somebody who has no naked-baby pics because his mom didn't want to embarass him. I thought the music fit perfectly. Two people falling in love and helping the guy recover his mojo, especially with a girl as smokin' as the Spectre? I know I'd be singing "Hallelujah!" in his place! I know it's almost a cliche, but... look at the care Dr Baehr lavished on that one line... It is a cliche, but only because it's so common! I saw no movement caused by any kind of breeze. Maybe a wiggle caused by movement and gravity, but that was it. The smurf-penis helped me get through all the horrible violence. =D
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Mar 9, 2009 5:10:06 GMT -5
Not the whole time, no. He does for quite a few scenes, but it's never like blatantly offensive. Just a penis, sittin' there, being a penis. Not a big deal if you're an adult. Fundie's tend to have the maturity of a 12 year old, so I can see why they would be upset. (Ewww pee pees! Gross, mommy!!) Okay, so it's a little "worse" than I thought. Not that I'm completely surprised, given the source material. But still, it shouldn't be that offensive. I often wonder if it's a lack of maturity or just a fear that if we see genitals, we'll all get hot and want to have sex. Which makes me wonder what the Hell goes in their minds. "EW! PENIS! PORNOGRAPHIC!" How did we get so afraid of our bodies, anyway? RELIGION... God is perfect. God made man(kind) in his perfect image. But mankind is shameful and wicked because of genitals. Only organized religion can take something that is one of if not THE best thing EVER... like fucking EVER, and make it into something to be guilty about when it works exactly as it is supposed to, in order to continue the species.
|
|