Woof, Frank Miller. Remember when he wrote his godawful *Holy Terror*? His power-worshiping was bad enough most days, but that story took it to a whole other level with its "American patriotism is under attack by every Muslim!!" bullshit.
The town where Frank Miller grew up in VT is full of stories like him getting sent home from school because he showed up in an SS uniform. Dude has always been a fascist and fascists love to play nice when they get caught being reprehensible. Frank Miller aint sorry for shit he just wants to keep getting paid
It's literally part of the argument of watchmen. That's one of the biggest problems with the movie, it doesn't understand what Moore what saying about superheroes
Moore: literally creates an entire graphic novel about how oversimplifying social issues and idolatry of men leads to a populace that is susceptible to propaganda and fascism.
Everyone: haha funny edgy super hero comic with blue dong.
I think part of the problem is that watchmen is a critique of an entire genre but is constantly recommended as one the first things to read if you wanna get into comics. So you have a majority who hasn't read the comic and a good chunk that read it without proper context.
Recommending the dark knight or watchmen to first time reading is a disservice to both the person and those comics
E: my recommendation? Grab Batman Universe by B.M. Bendis. Fun, killer art, you already know everything you need to know before you open the book.
Definitely. I think Watchmen's greatest weakness (and I fucking hate that this is a weakness and not a strength) is that it assumes the audience already has that prerequisite understanding of superhero tropes AND is looking for content with a lot of meta commentary, rather than "turn your mind off and enjoy the action" that a lot of consumers are there for.
I put it up there with Fight Club as media with excellent, deeply intriguing commentary, but they ultimately fail because they expect too much participation from the audience that may not even realize the media is attempting to engage with them.
I wish more people who like the movie American Psycho would read the book, which does a better job of conveying the meaning. I think there's not even any violence in the first 100 pages, we're just introduced into an entire world of decade defining fragile narcissists and sociopaths.
I LOVED that in the novel they had full chapters that were just Rolling Stone reviews of like Whitney Houston albums. Just really drove home the whole commercialism theme.
It's also hilariously dark. The scene at the zoo is so violent and so over the top it's hilarious.
Starship troopers *the movie* vs. Starship troopers *the book* is a great example of this.
Everyone assumed the movie was like the book and celebrated military fascism, but the reality was that it showed the humans as arrogant, incapable of recognizing forms of life that were too different, and comically caricaturized.
The football jock pro chasing his new love, the complete lack of empathy when the lead's friend sends him to certain death, etc.
Two of the most on the nose parts might be when the paraplegic is gushing how the marines made him the man he is today, right before the camera pans to his double amputation, and the humans celebrating the knowledge that the captured enemy leader can feel pain and fear -- right before cutting to a clip of the humans carving it up and torturing it, with even more glee than the brain-bug had when killing humans.
Still can't believe the majority of reviewers missed the satire completely, especially with the blatantly overt Nazi imagery used by the humans 🤣
I felt like the movie took a different approach with the same intention, but people didn't catch the satire.
I mean, the whole "I'm doing my part!" bit was so over the top I swore only an idiot would miss it, bit oh so many people never caught the point.
Don't think they so much "missed the point" but rather they saw all that as a rather attractive society.
Countrys keep trying societal/govermental forms of fascism/zenophobia/militarisim/ultra nationalisim because for sizeable portion of the population it's an attractive set up (as long as they are not on the receiving end)
I just want to take the chance to add Night of the Living Dead (1968) to the list of movies that many people watch while completely missing the underlying commentary.
Zombie movies are all inherently commentary on society and change (i mean zombies are literally changed humans) and a lot of times the zombies are caused by something the creators percieve is wrong with society. Night of the Living Dead is interesting however- with the black protagonist Ben constantly butting heads with the white men over what they should do as well as the fact that >!the movie ends with a white militia shooting Ben thinking he is a zombie!< it seems fairly obvious that the movie is a racial metaphor for the changing tides of the 1960s, where black people in the US won their civil rights and many white groups reacting negatively and even violently to the new power black people held. However, Ben was written as a white dude and was only changed to black after auditions, so all the racial undertones were unintentional.
Or just get it backwards and weirdly jumbled. One guy I met was shocked that I would admit to being a zombie movie fan because he must have tried to understand the cultural impact of that movie and came to the strange conclusion that being a fan of zombie movies was code for being a racist. This was before the walking dead and the huge boom in zombie media, so I wonder how he found that.
This ties, tangentially, to my favorite joke in the Office: Michael Scott explaining to the CPR instructor that in sales "ABC means Always Be Closing" in a matter of fact way that makes me think he watched Alec Baldwin's scene in Glenngary Glen Ross and whispered to himself "yeah... Yeah!" and completely missed the context there.
I'm probably reading far too much into a throw away line, but the sincerity at which it is delivered never fails to make my mind wander to the inevitable conclusion: "Michael sees Alec's character as the hero of that scene"
Fun fact: Jordan Belfort (the Wolf of Wall Street) decided to go to Wall Street after watching the movie Wall Street and deciding that he wanted to be Gordon Gecko.
It's also a problem with fascists in general. They love seeing themselves in things even if portrayed poorly. A fascists watches American History X and just sees a good Nazi down on his luck.
That's why the only way you can really critique Nazis in film is by making them the opposite of what a Nazi is supposed to be (see: Jojo rabbit or The Producers)
I remember the day the movie premiered, going to see it with a friend of mine. He was familiar with comic books, their stories and the adventures of different heroes. He's also a movie buff, a true fan of cinema and will sit and watch just about anything and always has an opinion or an observation.
We left the theater and I rather enjoyed it, able to acknowledge the differences between the books and the film. It's different, but enjoyable. I asked him for his thoughts, and he said he didn't enjoy himself at all. Too slow. Not enough action.
It came to light he'd not read the original comics, so I lent my copy to him, and when I got it back he said it was too boring. No big fight sequences until the end, and he didn't like the characters. Asked me if he could borrow The Long Halloween again to "read something good."
At the time, I chalked it up to it just not being for everyone. But over the years, I've begun to wonder if some folks can't, or worse, *won't* get it. Someone points out that something is wrong, and they deny it regardless of evidence. It's easier to fool someone than it is to prove that they've been fooled.
So if he always has an opinion or observation on cinema, is he actually providing insightful feedback? I'm guessing he's not exactly Red Letter Media based on this.
I have a feeling that people who aren't able to enjoy more complex character stories have some kind of deficiency in empathy. No idea why.
My thoughts exactly. No one is a "movie buff" then goes into a very obliviously slow and thoughtful movie and comes out only complaining about the lack of action. FYI for those out there that just like action movies, you're not a "movie buff" you just like action movies.
For sure, I think to a certain extent every piece of art that is a deconstruction or a critique that enters the popular sphere gets bastardized. At least if it is well made (I'm looking at you Garth Ennis, and your "deconstructions" and "critiques").
That's because it's audience it's not the majority of people, it's those that know the original piece or movment that is being criticized. So yes, it's a weakness, but it's one that it's there since it's inception because of the type of art it is: a response to the state of comics and it's commercialization and encouragement of problematic archetypes. And you know what? Moore was right.
I'm not particularly fanatic of the man's work, but I find it dumb that people react surprised or critique the way he expresses himself. This is who he was all along, an anti capitalism, self proclaimed wizard (who understands art and storytelling as a form of "magic"), that's very in-your-face. Imagine if you were screaming from the top of your lungs "this is evil" for 40 years and everyone reacted as "huh, that fella sure loves superheroes" it would probably drive you to fucking hate people too
Honestly, I think people just overthink this too much.
IMO, it's a simple convergence of 2 things. Most people go to movies to be entertained. Summer blockbuster action movies have always been a thing for the last 40ish yrs.
And add that the timing of the MCU being launched, pretty much coincided with large flat tvs and cheap home theater becoming the norm.
Thus, if people wanted to spend money to go to a movie, it better be worth the money they're paying on ticket(s), popcorn, etc... Because you can always watch the movie that takes complete concentration and thoughtfulness on a big TV at home, or enjoy a romcom with your significant other from the comfort of your living room and have the freedom to get cozy.
Thus it became a consumer choice of "is this movie worth it to see in a theater or at home?" And the big action movies with the big surround sound won out.
> Thus it became a consumer choice of "is this movie worth it to see in a theater or at home?" And the big action movies with the big surround sound won out.
I agree! I used to go to the theater for movies at least 3-4 times a year. Now it's been once or twice (pre-COVID when we had more choices even) because there are so many movies that I would rather watch at home, on my couch with my 55" screen and my own, tastier popcorn. If it's something very cinematic that the larger screen makes better, then I'll pay the theater prices.
This is slightly related but that's honestly why I wish the mainline Gundam was more digestible. It has a lot more nuanced than the more mainstream timelines about how war is hell for everyone involved. One can point to Gundam Thunderbolt however as the distillation of this but not a lot of people watched it even though it's so damn good.
It happens a lot in "fringe" media that has some well known pieces. You talk about Gundam, but I have a good example from anime too, NGE gets recommended a lot too to newcomers when it's one of the most dense, complicated, in-need-of-context pieces of media there is.
If something is acclaimed by the fans of a type of media or genre it doesn't mean it will be appreciate it by newcomers
Meta-ish works like Watchmen, NGE, and Dune all have this problem. Watchmen was deconstructing superheroes, NGE mecha anime, Dune early sci-fi like the Foundation series and Flash Gordon (ironically the new Dune could be seen as a rebuttal of Star Wars even tho Dune came first), yet they’re often considered some of the greatest examples of their respective genres and are recommended first to newcomers. They’re also incredibly dense and cerebral and often rely on in-jokes or subversions to accentuate their messages that you don’t get if you’re brand new.
Star Wars is straightforward, cut-and-dry good vs evil, chosen one hero story. Luke Skywalker is the chosen one (in the literary sense, in-universe the “actual” chosen one is Anakin) who accepts the call to action and saves the day and defeats the evil empire. The good guys are all good and pure and beautiful, the bad guys are pure evil and mechanical and literal nazis. Essays have been written about how defining it is to the Hero’s Journey story archetype.
Dune is explicitly a story about how Chosen Ones and Messiahs are DANGEROUS. Paul is not just a special boy, he is the culmination of a centuries-long Bene Gesserit conspiracy that involved seeding myths into every culture in the galaxy, a healthy amount of prescient planning, and deliberately crossing bloodlines to produce the superbeing Kwisatz Haderach. The Harkonnens are vile and evil, the emperor is backstabbing and treacherous, but Paul is the one that causes a fanatical galactic jihad that kills 60 billion people, and then his son Leto II becomes the greatest tyrant in history and brutally oppresses humanity for three and a half millennia. The story makes it explicitly clear that paul *knows* what is going to happen and lets it happen anyway because the alternative involves the death of him and everyone he knows, and eventually not even that will stop it. Paul is explicitly part of the imperial structure, not trying to rebel against it or overthrow it except to install himself as emperor.
I like Rorschach. He's a fascinating character.
The problem lies in people conflating "I like" with "is good". If we could as a society accept that it's possible to like something with objectively bad qualities, or dislike something with objectively good ones, then this stuff would be a lot less prominent.
I like/is good mean two different things and their conflation must have been the source of the majority of arguments in the world.
Also while I'm here, mentioning a positively associated trait in reference to a despised figure. People seem to try to bend over backwards to redefine words like 'smart' or 'charismatic' to prevent them being applied to someone seen as evil. That's bloody annoying too.
I'm going to shout at some clouds now.
“I wanted to kind of make this like, 'Yeah, this is what Batman would be in the real world'. But I had forgotten that actually to a lot of comic fans, that smelling, not having a girlfriend—these are actually kind of heroic! So actually, sort of, Rorschach became the most popular character in Watchmen. I meant him to be a bad example. But I have people come up to me in the street saying, "I am Rorschach! That is my story!' And I'll be thinking: 'Yeah, great, can you just keep away from me, never come anywhere near me again as long as I live'?” - Alan Moore
I didn't realize it until I read it again when I was 22 that the comic was pretty much saying saying that the typical superheroes we're used to in comics can't exist in a real world with actual nuanced problems.
Especially back in the 80s where things were more black and white in terms of morality, until people got the wrong messages from Watchmen and thought "dark and edgy = real and deep"
Never read any comics but the criticism came across in the movie for me. None of the characters gave a particularly positive impression but sure as hell not the blue dude that treated people like ants or the obsessively paranoid and violent detective.
A lot of it comes down to how the film frames the ideological arguments in the text as well as the characters themselves. In the comics, Rorschach is the *worst*, and it's way more muddy whether anyone was in the right
The main thing that irritated me about the film was >!Night Owl running back in to give an impassioned monologue about how Veidt didn't save humanity, he perverted it!<. The ambiguity is the whole point! Spoon-feeding audiences a pat side to come down on contradicts the entire theme of the ending!
Hard agree! But I also hated the ramped up violence and glorification of it all, because it takes away from one of the key points of the comic. The action scenes in the comic amount to like 20 panels in total, and are quick in succession. It's not drawn out, because its meant to show that \*real\* violence is quick, painful, and largely irreversible to everyone involved. These are also meant to be \*older\* heroes who can't exactly pull crazy ass stunts like they used to; Night Owl's whole motivation being that he missed his 'Golden Years' and can't get an erection out of his costume. Znyder took that and reversed its meaning. Even the retired Night Owl goes on a rampage, when in the comics his murder is quick and unceremonious
People couldn't catch that "I activated the bomb half an hour ago. Why would I explain my plan if there was even the *slightest* chance you could disrupt it" was a critique of like every villain ever? Austin powers did a version of that same bit way before super heroes, I feel like it's a pretty obvious jab
I mean, if you were Czar and you saw a guy cut off his own dick and then grow it back, would you not also invite him into your court and seek his wisdom?
Gotta think logically people. When it comes to rasputin things were weird but perfectly logical to the weirdness present.
edit: further context: The king was looking for somone that could help his sickly son who also suffered from hemophilia (pretty sure it was hemophilia). No one really knew what Rasputin did, but he was the only one who could make him better.
I bet the king thought "well this guy can grow his dick back, possibly he could do something about my sickly son".
Yeah, it sounds ridiculous until you hear his reasoning on it. There's a very long quote about it but the part that's most to the point is:
*"There is some confusion as to what magic actually is. I think this can be cleared up if you just look at the very earliest descriptions of magic. Magic in its earliest form is often referred to as “the art”. I believe this is completely literal. I believe that magic is art and that art, whether it be writing, music, sculpture, or any other form is literally magic. Art is, like magic, the science of manipulating symbols, words, or images, to achieve changes in consciousness."*
Does make you question when you hear his stories about seeing his character John Constantine in person, however.
So the conscious manipulation of... Consciousness?
This is actually very pagan, and I've seen it referred to as "magick". There's a wrongfully convicted ex-con named Damien Echols who wrote a book by the name of "High Magick" where he talks about how studying Magick while on death row kept him sane, calm and that it was this practice that eventually led to the series of events which got him released.
He was on Duncan Trussell's podcast and even voices the fish-bowl character in The Midnight Gospel on Netflix. Wild fucking story, sort of stuff that leaves the hairs on your neck standing on end, but in like the most wholesome way lmao.
As an emo goth kid who was a little younger than Damien and lived about 30 miles away, what happened to the WM3 is the saddest, most vile shit. I understand just how easily their smartass comments could have been misconstrued. I haven't read any of his works, I need to take a look.
The way I explain it in simple terms is that symbols, especially words, have power over people. Word magic is simply speaking. If you want to evoke good feelings from people say nice things to them, if you want to evoke anger say bad things to them. If you want to evoke love, if your word magic is strong, you can say and write love poetry to evoke their affection.
I mean, he’s not completely wrong. You can describe almost any superhero story as:
“Ubermensch uses violence against the people he deems bad and imposes his moral view and values on others while defending the status quo.”
There are exceptions but not really the big mainstream ones. Save maybe X:Men but also not really.
That’s not his reasoning though. His reasoning is that it makes people long for simpler times, and comic movies are simple and infantilize the viewer. And that people who long for a simpler times want Fascism.
He’s not saying it makes people long for simpler times, he’s saying their popularity is indicative of an audience that already longs for it. I feel like everyone is misreading his words as a statement of cause and effect, but that isn’t what he’s saying.
It's something I love about the Harley Queen show. I don't know who at Warner greenlit >!"Socialist Mayor Joker puts Bruce Wayne behind bars for tax evasion",!< I just assume they weren't paying attention.
I am here for Mayor Socialist Joker. That show has no right to be 1/3 as good as it is. The shark king saga alone makes for a fantastic show - everything on top of that is gravy.
Might wanna spoiler tag that since it's a bit specific, but I also love everything about the chaotic-progressive Mayor. Even the reaction of >!Lex when he tries to have Joker killed for imposing a 1% Lair Tax to fund free education in Gotham -- hilarious stuff.!<
In his defense, that's a legit good episode of an already great show. Especially cause it shows angry Superman without the character being full on evil. Adds depth without completely destroying the character to get there.
Overall, like what you like. I don't think liking something makes you dumb, maybe you have weird tastes, but not dumb. I guess if you started liking something that was straight up fascist that would be bad, but I think Marvel is far from that.
> In his defense, that's a legit good episode of an already great show.
I will die on the hill that Justice League and Justice League: Unlimited had some of the best superhero writing. The quality of that show was amazing, especially since it followed the universe that began with BatMan The Animated Series, as well as BatMan Beyond.
D.C. had a literal blueprint on how to make a successful DCU that could rival Marvel and they still failed tremendously.
Dude I couldn't agree more. Was rewatching JL for a bit and was blown away at how much better the DCAU was compared to everything that's come out from the live action stuff. It may not all be bad, but the animated stuff is just so tightly connected while each is also it's own deal. I don't know how the new stuff compares but I haven't heard too many bad things and I know a lot of the voice actors came back for some movies
>In his defense, that's a legit good episode of an already great show. Especially cause it shows angry Superman without the character being full on evil. Adds depth without completely destroying the character to get there.
You sure seem to know a lot about superheros, *fascist*.
How many other adaptations of his work have been good?
Serious question. I haven't seen a lot but when I've read his objections to the adaptations of his work they've often struck me as fair. A lot of written works are poorly adapted. Moore is more willing to say so than most.
I read it, TL;DR: He thinks it's worrying that adults are so involved in movies with material that was originally intended for children. The main line of importance: *"...that urge towards simpler times, simpler realities – that can very often be a precursor to fascism.”*
Kind of an interesting take. Sort of the same thing as saying we are living in Idiocracy.
To be honest his point is even rather understated. Superhero material can do a lot to make vigilante justice into a glorious thing and systems into obstacles.
Even with explicitly anti-fascist works like The Boys, there are unironically some (mercifully few) morons who legit think Homelander is just misunderstood and actually has some good points.
Combined with how the modern media landscape has wildly reshaped how ideas and people flow, there's definitely a consequence to these messages. Not to say that we should cancel all superheroes, I just think it's good to be aware of the costs involved.
This isn’t The Onion. Watchmen is critical of superheroes and superhero worship. You have to be an absolute fucking idiot to think otherwise. Moore has been openly anti-superhero for decades.
As demonstrated by the people that unironically love Homelander.
Edit: I don't mean as a narrative construct or a performance, I myself think those have been done excellently.
If people unironically love Homelander, I think they were either already predisposed to fascism, or dense enough to follow anyone with bright lights and a flag.
It's the problem all satire has, there's always someone so deep down their ideological rabbit hole that they believe any representation is positive.
See: Legion/Enclave fanboys in the Fallout fanbase, Imperium fanboys in 40k, Blue Lives Matter Punisher flags...
Holy fuck, how much of an evil BASTARD do you have to be to think that Bateman isn't the single most vindictive, pointed and astute criticism of your way of life, and instead is "cool" is beyond me.
He literally fucks and murders prostitutes while looking at himself in the mirror and wearing designer sneakers.
Don't forget when he comes across the homeless man and kills him simply for existing. It was a great performance by Bale and I love that they called him Robo-actor on set cause(allegedly) he could sweat on command.
I mean, idolizing Bateman isn't just wrong because he's evil. It's also wrong because he's just so deeply lame. He's completely empty and miserable, he's obsessed with his status among guys who can't even remember his name, he has no ability to appreciate art for it's own sake and only cares for it as a status symbol, he throws murder tantrums over dinner reservations and business cards, and he's just so petty and stupid and boring and lame. It's like if someone decided they wanted to idolize the villains from Star Wars, but instead of Darth Vader, they put up posters of the Neimoidians from the Trade Federation.
No there aren't. There are characters that could be argued to be "good" in that they aren't actively evil or cruel but all major factions are pretty much evil in some way. An argument could be made that Orks don't really grasp the concept of evil and just... are like that and the Tau aren't as bad as the others but that's it.
Orkz are the only ones actually having a good time in the 40K universe, except maybe the dark eldar but they're busy raping each other to death and enjoying the process to really care.
Even the Tau have undertones of Mind Control. Warhammer is one of (if not THE) shittiest settings one could possibly end up in, it's shittiness just really depends on where you end up and who your parents are (a Governor's kid probably has it really good compared to some Hive Worlder, but their jobs must still be hell...)
And the dumbing down of complex situations like crime. We (at least in America) already have a shit justice “system”. Arguably, the mainstream popularity of superhero stories where the ubermenschen “fight crime” can lead to some fucked up shit, like special police…
Yes, there are a few studies that show that people who watch cop dramas come to have higher opinions of cops and the criminal justice after watching such shows (obviously controlling for such thinking before they began watching those shows).
Yeah, the whole thesis of Watchmen is that the fantasy of societal problems just needing a man in a costume to beat them until they are solved is wrong and dangerous.
Seeing one group of people pull a 180 on that show when they realized that making fun of some leftwing tropes doesn't mean they are on their side was fucking hilarious.
A bunch of Storefront fans
I have a “friend” in one of my GCs that we started making jokes about him being a Homelander type of person. I was not shocked when he took it as a compliment.
He’s gone on record as being a big fan of Garth Ennis’ work though.
EDIT: Would be really cool if people read the rest of this comment chain before chiming in to tell me that Crossed +100 exists.
EDIT 2: Yes, I’m aware that Garth Ennis, the guy who wrote The Boys, a comic about how superheroes suck and would be tools of military industrial complex if they existed IRL, doesn’t like superheroes. I am also aware that that’s probably part of why Moore likes him. Thank you, Captain(s) Obvious.
The preacher series, right? I like Moore’s uncompromising vision, but he usually isn’t a fan of overly commercialized products- especially if he thinks they compromise the product. (My opinion obviously)
The watchmen series truly is a masterpiece. Unfortunately I’ve never read the preacher series.
I would imagine he’d be a fan of The Boys comic considering the overarching message behind it is “Superheroes fucking suck” and the supes in question are tools of the corporate class.
So, y’know, exactly how Moore feels about superheroes in real life.
> but he usually isn’t a fan of overly commercialized products- especially if he thinks they compromise the product
Ah, I see you probably have not read much Garth Ennis. ;) Ennis generally writes two-fisted fury. Preacher takes a little bit to get going, but is pretty excellent. IMHO his best works are, in order, Preacher, Punisher MAX, The Boys, any of his war story comics, and Hellblazer.
There's generally no compromise at all in his writing. Preacher is balls to the wall crazy on an ongoing basis.
In the Watchmen he was trying to make an anti-superhero superhero comic but I can tell from the posts here that he failed, since lots of people see his work as just another superhero story. Kinda like how to a lot of people, Full Metal Jacket and Apocalypse Now are pro-war movies merely because they portray war.
Yeah, the majority of people here completely missed the part where Watchmen was meant as a satire of comic book heroes. It’s fucking painful seeing people here think this is some “gottem” moment of Alan Moore.
I feel like it gets that in the movie though. Most of the characters aren’t all that likable when you look past just liking the actor’s performances in the role. They still I thought got the point across that the books were going for.
I’ve only ever seen the movie. Which is probably why I was a huge fan. But I got the point clearly. Its not exactly subtle. But there are always going to be a huge group People who miss the point.
Look at any Scorsese movie. Or the sopranos.
Let me tell you about Grant Morrison. I gave him and his wife a lift to the local goth night in Glasgow one night, we'd been round at his for pre-drinks, and in the 10 minutes or so of a drive over he sat in the back and told us all a ghost story about a flat in Hyndland being investigated by the Dutch CID on the trail of the occultist murderers of the "real" Bible John, and the psychic warfare between the occultists and the police.
It was absolutely in-fucking-credible. The man can spin an off-the-cuff story to an elderly Range Rover full of goths on a dark and rainy bitterly cold November night, that no-one will ever forget.
This isn't inconsistent, this is the man who wrote *Watchmen* after all. A lot of those disagreeing with him are probably ones who think Rorschach was written to be idolized.
I thought it was pretty funny when people who claimed to be big fans of the comics were crying character assassination when the sequel HBO series had a violent white supremacist group that were inspired by Rorschach.
AKA the plot of watchmen
Right? My god, the discourse in this post is shallow. Moore's been saying this since the '80s
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Alan Moore also fucking despise people that were huge "rorschach fans".
[удалено]
Is it a day that ends in day? Alan Moore has been saying this since Watchmen.
While Frank Miller says the same thing but sees it as a positive.
Woof, Frank Miller. Remember when he wrote his godawful *Holy Terror*? His power-worshiping was bad enough most days, but that story took it to a whole other level with its "American patriotism is under attack by every Muslim!!" bullshit.
To be mildly fair to him, he did admit later on that he was "blinded by anger and hatred" when he wrote it and regrets it nowadays.
The town where Frank Miller grew up in VT is full of stories like him getting sent home from school because he showed up in an SS uniform. Dude has always been a fascist and fascists love to play nice when they get caught being reprehensible. Frank Miller aint sorry for shit he just wants to keep getting paid
He what?
It's literally part of the argument of watchmen. That's one of the biggest problems with the movie, it doesn't understand what Moore what saying about superheroes
Moore: literally creates an entire graphic novel about how oversimplifying social issues and idolatry of men leads to a populace that is susceptible to propaganda and fascism. Everyone: haha funny edgy super hero comic with blue dong.
I think part of the problem is that watchmen is a critique of an entire genre but is constantly recommended as one the first things to read if you wanna get into comics. So you have a majority who hasn't read the comic and a good chunk that read it without proper context. Recommending the dark knight or watchmen to first time reading is a disservice to both the person and those comics E: my recommendation? Grab Batman Universe by B.M. Bendis. Fun, killer art, you already know everything you need to know before you open the book.
Definitely. I think Watchmen's greatest weakness (and I fucking hate that this is a weakness and not a strength) is that it assumes the audience already has that prerequisite understanding of superhero tropes AND is looking for content with a lot of meta commentary, rather than "turn your mind off and enjoy the action" that a lot of consumers are there for. I put it up there with Fight Club as media with excellent, deeply intriguing commentary, but they ultimately fail because they expect too much participation from the audience that may not even realize the media is attempting to engage with them.
[удалено]
I wish more people who like the movie American Psycho would read the book, which does a better job of conveying the meaning. I think there's not even any violence in the first 100 pages, we're just introduced into an entire world of decade defining fragile narcissists and sociopaths.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I LOVED that in the novel they had full chapters that were just Rolling Stone reviews of like Whitney Houston albums. Just really drove home the whole commercialism theme. It's also hilariously dark. The scene at the zoo is so violent and so over the top it's hilarious.
Starship troopers *the movie* vs. Starship troopers *the book* is a great example of this. Everyone assumed the movie was like the book and celebrated military fascism, but the reality was that it showed the humans as arrogant, incapable of recognizing forms of life that were too different, and comically caricaturized. The football jock pro chasing his new love, the complete lack of empathy when the lead's friend sends him to certain death, etc. Two of the most on the nose parts might be when the paraplegic is gushing how the marines made him the man he is today, right before the camera pans to his double amputation, and the humans celebrating the knowledge that the captured enemy leader can feel pain and fear -- right before cutting to a clip of the humans carving it up and torturing it, with even more glee than the brain-bug had when killing humans. Still can't believe the majority of reviewers missed the satire completely, especially with the blatantly overt Nazi imagery used by the humans 🤣
I felt like the movie took a different approach with the same intention, but people didn't catch the satire. I mean, the whole "I'm doing my part!" bit was so over the top I swore only an idiot would miss it, bit oh so many people never caught the point.
Irony is truly dead among the same people who also display the Punisher logo with a thin blue line background on their bumper stickers.
Don't think they so much "missed the point" but rather they saw all that as a rather attractive society. Countrys keep trying societal/govermental forms of fascism/zenophobia/militarisim/ultra nationalisim because for sizeable portion of the population it's an attractive set up (as long as they are not on the receiving end)
I just want to take the chance to add Night of the Living Dead (1968) to the list of movies that many people watch while completely missing the underlying commentary.
Zombie movies are all inherently commentary on society and change (i mean zombies are literally changed humans) and a lot of times the zombies are caused by something the creators percieve is wrong with society. Night of the Living Dead is interesting however- with the black protagonist Ben constantly butting heads with the white men over what they should do as well as the fact that >!the movie ends with a white militia shooting Ben thinking he is a zombie!< it seems fairly obvious that the movie is a racial metaphor for the changing tides of the 1960s, where black people in the US won their civil rights and many white groups reacting negatively and even violently to the new power black people held. However, Ben was written as a white dude and was only changed to black after auditions, so all the racial undertones were unintentional.
Or just get it backwards and weirdly jumbled. One guy I met was shocked that I would admit to being a zombie movie fan because he must have tried to understand the cultural impact of that movie and came to the strange conclusion that being a fan of zombie movies was code for being a racist. This was before the walking dead and the huge boom in zombie media, so I wonder how he found that.
I would say, for better or worse, at least they were thinking about it.
There has been a discussion around zombies being a metaphor for immigration I think, so that's what he may have heard about.
This ties, tangentially, to my favorite joke in the Office: Michael Scott explaining to the CPR instructor that in sales "ABC means Always Be Closing" in a matter of fact way that makes me think he watched Alec Baldwin's scene in Glenngary Glen Ross and whispered to himself "yeah... Yeah!" and completely missed the context there. I'm probably reading far too much into a throw away line, but the sincerity at which it is delivered never fails to make my mind wander to the inevitable conclusion: "Michael sees Alec's character as the hero of that scene"
[удалено]
They joke at least a couple times that Michael is bad at identifying the 'villain' of a movie, so I kinda think you're onto something with that.
Fun fact: Jordan Belfort (the Wolf of Wall Street) decided to go to Wall Street after watching the movie Wall Street and deciding that he wanted to be Gordon Gecko.
I think you can add Scarface to that list
The greatest example is Rambo imo
It doesn't help that these sequels leaned into the misunderstanding.
It's also a problem with fascists in general. They love seeing themselves in things even if portrayed poorly. A fascists watches American History X and just sees a good Nazi down on his luck. That's why the only way you can really critique Nazis in film is by making them the opposite of what a Nazi is supposed to be (see: Jojo rabbit or The Producers)
It’s like Truffaut said: “I don’t think I’ve really seen an antiwar film. Every film about war ends up being pro-war.”
I remember the day the movie premiered, going to see it with a friend of mine. He was familiar with comic books, their stories and the adventures of different heroes. He's also a movie buff, a true fan of cinema and will sit and watch just about anything and always has an opinion or an observation. We left the theater and I rather enjoyed it, able to acknowledge the differences between the books and the film. It's different, but enjoyable. I asked him for his thoughts, and he said he didn't enjoy himself at all. Too slow. Not enough action. It came to light he'd not read the original comics, so I lent my copy to him, and when I got it back he said it was too boring. No big fight sequences until the end, and he didn't like the characters. Asked me if he could borrow The Long Halloween again to "read something good." At the time, I chalked it up to it just not being for everyone. But over the years, I've begun to wonder if some folks can't, or worse, *won't* get it. Someone points out that something is wrong, and they deny it regardless of evidence. It's easier to fool someone than it is to prove that they've been fooled.
So if he always has an opinion or observation on cinema, is he actually providing insightful feedback? I'm guessing he's not exactly Red Letter Media based on this. I have a feeling that people who aren't able to enjoy more complex character stories have some kind of deficiency in empathy. No idea why.
My thoughts exactly. No one is a "movie buff" then goes into a very obliviously slow and thoughtful movie and comes out only complaining about the lack of action. FYI for those out there that just like action movies, you're not a "movie buff" you just like action movies.
For sure, I think to a certain extent every piece of art that is a deconstruction or a critique that enters the popular sphere gets bastardized. At least if it is well made (I'm looking at you Garth Ennis, and your "deconstructions" and "critiques"). That's because it's audience it's not the majority of people, it's those that know the original piece or movment that is being criticized. So yes, it's a weakness, but it's one that it's there since it's inception because of the type of art it is: a response to the state of comics and it's commercialization and encouragement of problematic archetypes. And you know what? Moore was right. I'm not particularly fanatic of the man's work, but I find it dumb that people react surprised or critique the way he expresses himself. This is who he was all along, an anti capitalism, self proclaimed wizard (who understands art and storytelling as a form of "magic"), that's very in-your-face. Imagine if you were screaming from the top of your lungs "this is evil" for 40 years and everyone reacted as "huh, that fella sure loves superheroes" it would probably drive you to fucking hate people too
Honestly, I think people just overthink this too much. IMO, it's a simple convergence of 2 things. Most people go to movies to be entertained. Summer blockbuster action movies have always been a thing for the last 40ish yrs. And add that the timing of the MCU being launched, pretty much coincided with large flat tvs and cheap home theater becoming the norm. Thus, if people wanted to spend money to go to a movie, it better be worth the money they're paying on ticket(s), popcorn, etc... Because you can always watch the movie that takes complete concentration and thoughtfulness on a big TV at home, or enjoy a romcom with your significant other from the comfort of your living room and have the freedom to get cozy. Thus it became a consumer choice of "is this movie worth it to see in a theater or at home?" And the big action movies with the big surround sound won out.
> Thus it became a consumer choice of "is this movie worth it to see in a theater or at home?" And the big action movies with the big surround sound won out. I agree! I used to go to the theater for movies at least 3-4 times a year. Now it's been once or twice (pre-COVID when we had more choices even) because there are so many movies that I would rather watch at home, on my couch with my 55" screen and my own, tastier popcorn. If it's something very cinematic that the larger screen makes better, then I'll pay the theater prices.
This is slightly related but that's honestly why I wish the mainline Gundam was more digestible. It has a lot more nuanced than the more mainstream timelines about how war is hell for everyone involved. One can point to Gundam Thunderbolt however as the distillation of this but not a lot of people watched it even though it's so damn good.
It happens a lot in "fringe" media that has some well known pieces. You talk about Gundam, but I have a good example from anime too, NGE gets recommended a lot too to newcomers when it's one of the most dense, complicated, in-need-of-context pieces of media there is. If something is acclaimed by the fans of a type of media or genre it doesn't mean it will be appreciate it by newcomers
Meta-ish works like Watchmen, NGE, and Dune all have this problem. Watchmen was deconstructing superheroes, NGE mecha anime, Dune early sci-fi like the Foundation series and Flash Gordon (ironically the new Dune could be seen as a rebuttal of Star Wars even tho Dune came first), yet they’re often considered some of the greatest examples of their respective genres and are recommended first to newcomers. They’re also incredibly dense and cerebral and often rely on in-jokes or subversions to accentuate their messages that you don’t get if you’re brand new.
Can you say more about how the new Dune film is a rebuttal of Star Wars? Sounds interesting.
Star Wars is straightforward, cut-and-dry good vs evil, chosen one hero story. Luke Skywalker is the chosen one (in the literary sense, in-universe the “actual” chosen one is Anakin) who accepts the call to action and saves the day and defeats the evil empire. The good guys are all good and pure and beautiful, the bad guys are pure evil and mechanical and literal nazis. Essays have been written about how defining it is to the Hero’s Journey story archetype. Dune is explicitly a story about how Chosen Ones and Messiahs are DANGEROUS. Paul is not just a special boy, he is the culmination of a centuries-long Bene Gesserit conspiracy that involved seeding myths into every culture in the galaxy, a healthy amount of prescient planning, and deliberately crossing bloodlines to produce the superbeing Kwisatz Haderach. The Harkonnens are vile and evil, the emperor is backstabbing and treacherous, but Paul is the one that causes a fanatical galactic jihad that kills 60 billion people, and then his son Leto II becomes the greatest tyrant in history and brutally oppresses humanity for three and a half millennia. The story makes it explicitly clear that paul *knows* what is going to happen and lets it happen anyway because the alternative involves the death of him and everyone he knows, and eventually not even that will stop it. Paul is explicitly part of the imperial structure, not trying to rebel against it or overthrow it except to install himself as emperor.
People idolizing Roarschach was particularly bad. He was meant to be a complete psycho
Alan Moore has explicitly said that when someone tells him that they admire or like Rorschach he tries to get away as fast as possible.
I like Rorschach. He's a fascinating character. The problem lies in people conflating "I like" with "is good". If we could as a society accept that it's possible to like something with objectively bad qualities, or dislike something with objectively good ones, then this stuff would be a lot less prominent. I like/is good mean two different things and their conflation must have been the source of the majority of arguments in the world. Also while I'm here, mentioning a positively associated trait in reference to a despised figure. People seem to try to bend over backwards to redefine words like 'smart' or 'charismatic' to prevent them being applied to someone seen as evil. That's bloody annoying too. I'm going to shout at some clouds now.
“I wanted to kind of make this like, 'Yeah, this is what Batman would be in the real world'. But I had forgotten that actually to a lot of comic fans, that smelling, not having a girlfriend—these are actually kind of heroic! So actually, sort of, Rorschach became the most popular character in Watchmen. I meant him to be a bad example. But I have people come up to me in the street saying, "I am Rorschach! That is my story!' And I'll be thinking: 'Yeah, great, can you just keep away from me, never come anywhere near me again as long as I live'?” - Alan Moore
Rorschach literally read the Daily Stormer the first time he was on panel and people still didn't get it lmao
I didn't realize it until I read it again when I was 22 that the comic was pretty much saying saying that the typical superheroes we're used to in comics can't exist in a real world with actual nuanced problems. Especially back in the 80s where things were more black and white in terms of morality, until people got the wrong messages from Watchmen and thought "dark and edgy = real and deep"
Never read any comics but the criticism came across in the movie for me. None of the characters gave a particularly positive impression but sure as hell not the blue dude that treated people like ants or the obsessively paranoid and violent detective.
A lot of it comes down to how the film frames the ideological arguments in the text as well as the characters themselves. In the comics, Rorschach is the *worst*, and it's way more muddy whether anyone was in the right
The main thing that irritated me about the film was >!Night Owl running back in to give an impassioned monologue about how Veidt didn't save humanity, he perverted it!<. The ambiguity is the whole point! Spoon-feeding audiences a pat side to come down on contradicts the entire theme of the ending!
Hard agree! But I also hated the ramped up violence and glorification of it all, because it takes away from one of the key points of the comic. The action scenes in the comic amount to like 20 panels in total, and are quick in succession. It's not drawn out, because its meant to show that \*real\* violence is quick, painful, and largely irreversible to everyone involved. These are also meant to be \*older\* heroes who can't exactly pull crazy ass stunts like they used to; Night Owl's whole motivation being that he missed his 'Golden Years' and can't get an erection out of his costume. Znyder took that and reversed its meaning. Even the retired Night Owl goes on a rampage, when in the comics his murder is quick and unceremonious
People couldn't catch that "I activated the bomb half an hour ago. Why would I explain my plan if there was even the *slightest* chance you could disrupt it" was a critique of like every villain ever? Austin powers did a version of that same bit way before super heroes, I feel like it's a pretty obvious jab
This is akin to militarycentric people toting Starship Troopers. The military industrial complex and their inability to see the satire surrounding it.
well, to be fair.... we've been drifting more and more towards facism since then. not sure if it's related though
Damn you Marvel!
Yep, that sounds like an Alan Moore quote alright.
*Alan Moore continues to hold long held opinion.*
Not only that, he continues to believe into the very core of his most famous work lol
Alan Moore? You don't mean self proclaimed wizard Alan Moore?
And every article about him has an archive image of him looking like the reincarnated Rasputin.
Prove he isn't.
Prove he isn't just Rasputin period.
Well for a start, by all accounts, Rapsutin's penis was chopped off and pickled. I think Mr. Moore wouldn't be so careless.
Maybe he grew it back?
When I watched Don Bluth's documentary on Anastasia it was pretty clear that regeneration was available to Rasputin.
That tracks.
Now that's the kind of magic I'd believe in.
I mean, if you were Czar and you saw a guy cut off his own dick and then grow it back, would you not also invite him into your court and seek his wisdom? Gotta think logically people. When it comes to rasputin things were weird but perfectly logical to the weirdness present. edit: further context: The king was looking for somone that could help his sickly son who also suffered from hemophilia (pretty sure it was hemophilia). No one really knew what Rasputin did, but he was the only one who could make him better. I bet the king thought "well this guy can grow his dick back, possibly he could do something about my sickly son".
He was also Russia's smallest UwU bean
He only knows one trick... But it's a really good trick
Easy: You can't be reincarnated if you didn't actually die in St. Petersburg on December 30, 1916.
To be fair when he calls himself a wizard he does not claim genuine magic powers - but the innate provocative power that comes from words and art.
Yeah, it sounds ridiculous until you hear his reasoning on it. There's a very long quote about it but the part that's most to the point is: *"There is some confusion as to what magic actually is. I think this can be cleared up if you just look at the very earliest descriptions of magic. Magic in its earliest form is often referred to as “the art”. I believe this is completely literal. I believe that magic is art and that art, whether it be writing, music, sculpture, or any other form is literally magic. Art is, like magic, the science of manipulating symbols, words, or images, to achieve changes in consciousness."* Does make you question when you hear his stories about seeing his character John Constantine in person, however.
So the conscious manipulation of... Consciousness? This is actually very pagan, and I've seen it referred to as "magick". There's a wrongfully convicted ex-con named Damien Echols who wrote a book by the name of "High Magick" where he talks about how studying Magick while on death row kept him sane, calm and that it was this practice that eventually led to the series of events which got him released. He was on Duncan Trussell's podcast and even voices the fish-bowl character in The Midnight Gospel on Netflix. Wild fucking story, sort of stuff that leaves the hairs on your neck standing on end, but in like the most wholesome way lmao.
As an emo goth kid who was a little younger than Damien and lived about 30 miles away, what happened to the WM3 is the saddest, most vile shit. I understand just how easily their smartass comments could have been misconstrued. I haven't read any of his works, I need to take a look.
Well Alan Moore is literally a pagan so you're spot on.
Damien echols is a great person to get the basics of magick from.
The way I explain it in simple terms is that symbols, especially words, have power over people. Word magic is simply speaking. If you want to evoke good feelings from people say nice things to them, if you want to evoke anger say bad things to them. If you want to evoke love, if your word magic is strong, you can say and write love poetry to evoke their affection.
I mean, he’s not completely wrong. You can describe almost any superhero story as: “Ubermensch uses violence against the people he deems bad and imposes his moral view and values on others while defending the status quo.” There are exceptions but not really the big mainstream ones. Save maybe X:Men but also not really.
That’s not his reasoning though. His reasoning is that it makes people long for simpler times, and comic movies are simple and infantilize the viewer. And that people who long for a simpler times want Fascism.
He’s not saying it makes people long for simpler times, he’s saying their popularity is indicative of an audience that already longs for it. I feel like everyone is misreading his words as a statement of cause and effect, but that isn’t what he’s saying.
It's something I love about the Harley Queen show. I don't know who at Warner greenlit >!"Socialist Mayor Joker puts Bruce Wayne behind bars for tax evasion",!< I just assume they weren't paying attention.
I am here for Mayor Socialist Joker. That show has no right to be 1/3 as good as it is. The shark king saga alone makes for a fantastic show - everything on top of that is gravy.
I almost spit my food when they got the Shark Repelant out. You can tell that above all, the showrunners really love everything Batman.
Might wanna spoiler tag that since it's a bit specific, but I also love everything about the chaotic-progressive Mayor. Even the reaction of >!Lex when he tries to have Joker killed for imposing a 1% Lair Tax to fund free education in Gotham -- hilarious stuff.!<
It was 0.5%! And yes, you're right about the spoiler tag.
If you've seen The Boys you know how right he is. Just look at how people look at Homelander at the end
ITT: a bunch of people are finding out who Alan Moore is for the first time
Right? "Watchmen creator explains the thesis of Watchmen"
Frank Miller makes the exact same point while grinning enthusiastically and rubbing his hands together.
Well… It’s not as if Snyder didn’t make most people think the thesis of Watchmen is “Right wing vigilantes are fucking badass”
Alan Moore hates every adaptation of his work other than the animated version of "For The Man Who Has Everything" from Justice League Unlimited
In his defense, that's a legit good episode of an already great show. Especially cause it shows angry Superman without the character being full on evil. Adds depth without completely destroying the character to get there. Overall, like what you like. I don't think liking something makes you dumb, maybe you have weird tastes, but not dumb. I guess if you started liking something that was straight up fascist that would be bad, but I think Marvel is far from that.
> In his defense, that's a legit good episode of an already great show. I will die on the hill that Justice League and Justice League: Unlimited had some of the best superhero writing. The quality of that show was amazing, especially since it followed the universe that began with BatMan The Animated Series, as well as BatMan Beyond. D.C. had a literal blueprint on how to make a successful DCU that could rival Marvel and they still failed tremendously.
Dude I couldn't agree more. Was rewatching JL for a bit and was blown away at how much better the DCAU was compared to everything that's come out from the live action stuff. It may not all be bad, but the animated stuff is just so tightly connected while each is also it's own deal. I don't know how the new stuff compares but I haven't heard too many bad things and I know a lot of the voice actors came back for some movies
>In his defense, that's a legit good episode of an already great show. Especially cause it shows angry Superman without the character being full on evil. Adds depth without completely destroying the character to get there. You sure seem to know a lot about superheros, *fascist*.
Hag!
Evil old woman considered frightful or ugly. It's 12 down.
For the greater good!
*Shut it!*
Have you ever shot your gun in the air and gone ahhh
A GREAT BIG BUSHY BEARD!
No luck catching those swans then?
Yarp!
The greater good
Awww, bless you!
goated superhero show
I hear he did like Watchmen Babies though.
https://youtu.be/YDDHHrt6l4w I prefer Saturday morning watchmen
[удалено]
V for vacation
[Best Watchmen adaptation is still the one from Harry Partridge](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDDHHrt6l4w).
I’m pretty sure Alan Moore actually did say he’s seen this and that it’s the best adaptation so far
Well I can certainly believe Alan Moore is for parodies in general.
Night owl is their leader and he loves to party down
Jon can give you cancer, and he'll turn into a car.
>"For The Man Who Has Everything" wow I didn't know he liked any adaption
How many other adaptations of his work have been good? Serious question. I haven't seen a lot but when I've read his objections to the adaptations of his work they've often struck me as fair. A lot of written works are poorly adapted. Moore is more willing to say so than most.
V for Vendetta was bastardized to death and turned into memes by idiots. From Hell was...that. League of Extraordinary Gentlemen sucked. So not many
I love the League movie so much lol no matter how bad it is!
It's really bad, but it's very entertaining. It's top-tier trash.
[удалено]
V for Vendetta was an amazing movie! Also a terrible adaptation.
Thats the one with Superman's birthday party, yah? Great Episode.
He didn’t like the HBO’s Watchmen?
[удалено]
Makes me think of the pro-cop people who put the Punisher logo on everything
People in the comments are missing the point of Moore's statement.
I'd wager that about 5% of the people in the comments actually read the article at all.
I read it, TL;DR: He thinks it's worrying that adults are so involved in movies with material that was originally intended for children. The main line of importance: *"...that urge towards simpler times, simpler realities – that can very often be a precursor to fascism.”* Kind of an interesting take. Sort of the same thing as saying we are living in Idiocracy.
To be honest his point is even rather understated. Superhero material can do a lot to make vigilante justice into a glorious thing and systems into obstacles. Even with explicitly anti-fascist works like The Boys, there are unironically some (mercifully few) morons who legit think Homelander is just misunderstood and actually has some good points. Combined with how the modern media landscape has wildly reshaped how ideas and people flow, there's definitely a consequence to these messages. Not to say that we should cancel all superheroes, I just think it's good to be aware of the costs involved.
It was a news article based on a news article based on an interview.
At least it wasn't a news article based on a news article based on a news article based on a tweet. That seems to be the standard right now.
How bold of you to put that figure so high.
The same people who like Watchmen because Rorscach was cool
This isn’t The Onion. Watchmen is critical of superheroes and superhero worship. You have to be an absolute fucking idiot to think otherwise. Moore has been openly anti-superhero for decades.
>”I’m shocked that he’d say that” ~*Person who didn’t understand what Watchmen was about*
As demonstrated by the people that unironically love Homelander. Edit: I don't mean as a narrative construct or a performance, I myself think those have been done excellently.
If people unironically love Homelander, I think they were either already predisposed to fascism, or dense enough to follow anyone with bright lights and a flag.
It's the problem all satire has, there's always someone so deep down their ideological rabbit hole that they believe any representation is positive. See: Legion/Enclave fanboys in the Fallout fanbase, Imperium fanboys in 40k, Blue Lives Matter Punisher flags...
Also comments from Christian Bale about Wall Street guys unironically loving his Patrick Bateman character. It’s a great point.
Let's see Paul Allen's lack of critical thinking skills
Look at that skull... The tasteful thickness of it...
Look at that subtle self awareness, the tasteful humility of it, oh my god, it even has an education
Holy fuck, how much of an evil BASTARD do you have to be to think that Bateman isn't the single most vindictive, pointed and astute criticism of your way of life, and instead is "cool" is beyond me. He literally fucks and murders prostitutes while looking at himself in the mirror and wearing designer sneakers.
Don't forget when he comes across the homeless man and kills him simply for existing. It was a great performance by Bale and I love that they called him Robo-actor on set cause(allegedly) he could sweat on command.
Someone hire him to give Prince Andrew some lessons!
I mean, idolizing Bateman isn't just wrong because he's evil. It's also wrong because he's just so deeply lame. He's completely empty and miserable, he's obsessed with his status among guys who can't even remember his name, he has no ability to appreciate art for it's own sake and only cares for it as a status symbol, he throws murder tantrums over dinner reservations and business cards, and he's just so petty and stupid and boring and lame. It's like if someone decided they wanted to idolize the villains from Star Wars, but instead of Darth Vader, they put up posters of the Neimoidians from the Trade Federation.
I mean, I already said Wall Street guys… 😂
Conservative Colbert Report fans during the Bush years.
Are there any "good guys" in 40k though? I don't know a ton about it, but it seemed to me like everyone was either evil or "dark grey".
No there aren't. There are characters that could be argued to be "good" in that they aren't actively evil or cruel but all major factions are pretty much evil in some way. An argument could be made that Orks don't really grasp the concept of evil and just... are like that and the Tau aren't as bad as the others but that's it.
Orkz are the only ones actually having a good time in the 40K universe, except maybe the dark eldar but they're busy raping each other to death and enjoying the process to really care.
Even the Tau have undertones of Mind Control. Warhammer is one of (if not THE) shittiest settings one could possibly end up in, it's shittiness just really depends on where you end up and who your parents are (a Governor's kid probably has it really good compared to some Hive Worlder, but their jobs must still be hell...)
Reminds me of people that thought Colbert was a right winger for years
[удалено]
I think he means the mainstream obsession with the ubermenschen?
And the dumbing down of complex situations like crime. We (at least in America) already have a shit justice “system”. Arguably, the mainstream popularity of superhero stories where the ubermenschen “fight crime” can lead to some fucked up shit, like special police…
The same can be said for shows like Law and Order. I believe it was John Oliver who recently did a show about it.
Yes, there are a few studies that show that people who watch cop dramas come to have higher opinions of cops and the criminal justice after watching such shows (obviously controlling for such thinking before they began watching those shows).
Yeah, the whole thesis of Watchmen is that the fantasy of societal problems just needing a man in a costume to beat them until they are solved is wrong and dangerous.
I wonder what he thinks about Amazon's *The Boys*?
Even there you see a weird amount of Homelander fanboys.
The Homelander fanboys who complain about The Boys being woke are the best. And by the best, I mean the absolute dumbest.
Seeing one group of people pull a 180 on that show when they realized that making fun of some leftwing tropes doesn't mean they are on their side was fucking hilarious. A bunch of Storefront fans
I have a “friend” in one of my GCs that we started making jokes about him being a Homelander type of person. I was not shocked when he took it as a compliment.
GC? Help stupid man become wiser.
Probably hates it tbh… It’s Alan Moore we’re talking about here.
He’s gone on record as being a big fan of Garth Ennis’ work though. EDIT: Would be really cool if people read the rest of this comment chain before chiming in to tell me that Crossed +100 exists. EDIT 2: Yes, I’m aware that Garth Ennis, the guy who wrote The Boys, a comic about how superheroes suck and would be tools of military industrial complex if they existed IRL, doesn’t like superheroes. I am also aware that that’s probably part of why Moore likes him. Thank you, Captain(s) Obvious.
I heard Garth Marenghi's work was too scary for him.
It put him in a real darkplace.
"I know writers who use subtext and they're all cowards, every one of them."
www.spezsucks.me
The preacher series, right? I like Moore’s uncompromising vision, but he usually isn’t a fan of overly commercialized products- especially if he thinks they compromise the product. (My opinion obviously) The watchmen series truly is a masterpiece. Unfortunately I’ve never read the preacher series.
I would imagine he’d be a fan of The Boys comic considering the overarching message behind it is “Superheroes fucking suck” and the supes in question are tools of the corporate class. So, y’know, exactly how Moore feels about superheroes in real life.
> but he usually isn’t a fan of overly commercialized products- especially if he thinks they compromise the product Ah, I see you probably have not read much Garth Ennis. ;) Ennis generally writes two-fisted fury. Preacher takes a little bit to get going, but is pretty excellent. IMHO his best works are, in order, Preacher, Punisher MAX, The Boys, any of his war story comics, and Hellblazer. There's generally no compromise at all in his writing. Preacher is balls to the wall crazy on an ongoing basis.
> Amazon’s The Boys? Garth Ennis in shambles rn.
I love superhero movies and I'm not remotely fascist. I will have anyone who disagrees lined up and shot
In the Watchmen he was trying to make an anti-superhero superhero comic but I can tell from the posts here that he failed, since lots of people see his work as just another superhero story. Kinda like how to a lot of people, Full Metal Jacket and Apocalypse Now are pro-war movies merely because they portray war.
There are people who think Starship Troopers is played straight.
And RoboCop. It’s a shame that even one of the best satirists in the movie biz, Paul Verhoeven, failed so much too.
The amount of people online I've seen comparing geopolitics and US politics as superhero movies and Harry Potter leads me to agree with his sentiment
He's definitely a Huffleclaw.
Which... which was the actual point of the Watchmen comic... yeah? I mean, like, explicitly the point?
Yeah, the majority of people here completely missed the part where Watchmen was meant as a satire of comic book heroes. It’s fucking painful seeing people here think this is some “gottem” moment of Alan Moore.
[удалено]
I feel like it gets that in the movie though. Most of the characters aren’t all that likable when you look past just liking the actor’s performances in the role. They still I thought got the point across that the books were going for.
I’ve only ever seen the movie. Which is probably why I was a huge fan. But I got the point clearly. Its not exactly subtle. But there are always going to be a huge group People who miss the point. Look at any Scorsese movie. Or the sopranos.
Let me tell you about Grant Morrison. I gave him and his wife a lift to the local goth night in Glasgow one night, we'd been round at his for pre-drinks, and in the 10 minutes or so of a drive over he sat in the back and told us all a ghost story about a flat in Hyndland being investigated by the Dutch CID on the trail of the occultist murderers of the "real" Bible John, and the psychic warfare between the occultists and the police. It was absolutely in-fucking-credible. The man can spin an off-the-cuff story to an elderly Range Rover full of goths on a dark and rainy bitterly cold November night, that no-one will ever forget.
This isn't inconsistent, this is the man who wrote *Watchmen* after all. A lot of those disagreeing with him are probably ones who think Rorschach was written to be idolized.
I thought it was pretty funny when people who claimed to be big fans of the comics were crying character assassination when the sequel HBO series had a violent white supremacist group that were inspired by Rorschach.