The Geek Beat: The Family That Watches Together

All right, so what did you think of Watchmen?

Mike: I really enjoyed the movie, it was a great escape after a very tough week which is why I go to movies. I really liked how it advanced through different time periods.

Julie: I loved it. I thought it brought the book to life perfectly. As if you had touched the book with a magic wand and made it real. I was completely sucked into a new world, it was that real.

Mom, you've only read the book once, and Dad, you haven't read it at all ... did you ever find it to hard to follow? Did it seem like it was talking to an audience more familiar with the material, or did it feel like a complete film?

Mike: It was slightly confusing at the beginning but I learned enough about the characters that I understood the story line based on the progression of the movie. It was entertaining but slightly long. I thought someone like myself without reading the book could enjoy the characters, and their development. It held my interest except [at] about the last 30 minutes it started to drag. I enjoyed the cinematography, the sets and costumes.

Julie: It felt like a complete film. While I did sit and wonder (and worry) that I would remember everything I needed to, it ended up making perfect sense. Much came back to me as the film unfolded. For me it was actually a nice way to revisit the story. So many of those intriguing but often time consuming and confusion off shoot storylines were gone, making it flow smoother. I would catch myself remembering, with a "oh wait, this is where such and such was ..." but not worrying over it. I didn't feel any aching void except probably the death of Hollis.

I know there's a lot of talk around the film about how Watchmen is THE graphic novel to end all graphic novels -- was there a sense with the film that this WAS a story and a world different than X-Men or The Dark Knight? Or did you think it was just another superhero story?

Mike: No, this was a definite departure from the normal superhero type of movie, and the graphic novel theme came through loud and clear. It showed the graphic violence and character flaws of the superhero. Batman or Superman would not attempt to rape another superhero. I thought the gratuitous sex scenes could have been eliminated, but that is the style of a graphic novel, somewhat to shock or titillate you.

Julie: Oh no, different from the get go. This was no ordinary superhero movie. Perhaps the realism of it goes a long way in setting this up, maybe its the time frame. While it is a an alternate 1985, it was a very recognizable world and our "superheros" are so very real and ordinary, living very bland and rather depressing lives, nothing very extraordinary at all. It is much more "graphic" in its grit and realism and clearly a novel in scope. I think you pick up on the scope of this story right off the get go. That opening sequence lets you know right off the bat that there is a whole lot of story here. No Hulk walking onto an average street, or the pseudo city of Gotham, or the hyper futuristic look of an X-man movie.

There was something Scott Weinberg wanted to ask you -- was it uncomfortable seeing a naked Dr. Manhattan or the sex scene with me in the theater?

Mike: I am always somewhat embarrassed by graphic sex scenes in movies. There used to be a suggestion of a sex scene such as Two Mules for Sister Sara, you knew what went on without actually seeing it. The "pity f***" scene comment made me laugh, along with "that it is like touching a battery." I always believe that Batman and Superman are a turn on to a woman, but Superman flew them around. In the last Superman movie, he actually fathered a child but again it was left to imagination what occurred. But that would not be in keeping with a graphic novel. I liked that the original Silk Spectre had a cheap Mexican sex comic book given to her that she showed to her daughter, who stated that was gross.

Julie: I'll admit, I read a few snippets of reviews before the film, and the whole penis thing was everywhere. OMG everyone was laughing, I just couldn't get this big giant blue dangling thing out of my head. I sat there in the film quite frankly, waiting for the first appearance of the big blue organ. When it came I was like, "What is all the talk about? Do I have an exceptionally small screen or does it need cleaning? There is nothing to go on about." It was rarely there and I never noticed it. It blended in with the rest of him. I think this is all coming from men who can't deal with having that on screen.

Ha! I agree. I just didn't think it was that visible ... I wasn't uncomfortable with Dr. Manhattan, but I admit when the sex scene kicked in it was like "Oh my, I am suddenly very aware my parents are here." Plus it brought back all those memories of 300 and my now famous reaction to the Gerard Butler ass shot at BNAT. I got really yanked out all of a sudden and wondered if the full moon and Patrick Wilson's illuminated butt was a stylistic coincidence...!

Mike: I never even noticed a big blue organ. I just kept thinking how incredibly cut and muscular he was, unlike his former nerd self. I like the '50s time period a lot and really enjoyed seeing the characters interspersed with actual events. The blue man meeting President Kennedy was well done. I am an assassination conspiracy buff, and do not believe Oswald as the lone gunman, so the Comedian on the grassy knoll was a joy to all conspiracy buffs everyone. The famous Life Magazine photo of VE Day kissing the nurse was great.

Julie: As for the sex scene, it was OH MY, I'm feeling a bit warm, I wonder what Mike is thinking of this right now. This is hot! I think I've seen so many things like this with Beth I don't really think about it anymore other than, "Gee, I can't wait to ask her what she thought of this!" My only other thought was wow, Patrick Wilson had to go much farther than Gerry [Butler] every did in 300 with his love scene. He must have no trouble doing this sort of thing at all ... wow. Was it more than the film needed? Oh yeah. I just kind of blinked and thought well, this has Zack Snyder's stamp all over it.

Who was your favorite character and why ... and Mom did you have a different one from when you read the book versus seeing the movie?

Mike: The Comedian was the most developed psychopathic character, and I kind of thought that the Nite Owl was kind of wimpy. I really liked Rorschach's mask changing colors, but I did not like when he attacked the SWAT team and killed police officers. But I really enjoyed his prison scenes, especially with the black guy in the mess hall. I liked Sally Jupiter, the original Spectre best.

I always liked Sally's red hair, and I always liked her better than Laurie because she was unashamed of what she had done. She knew she was sexy in her costume, and she just went with it. I always thought that was really gutsy. I felt BAD for Laurie, and it initially bugged me that I felt bad for her. I have to say, I liked Rorschach in the movie much more than I did in the book. They toned him down quite a bit, but even if they hadn't, I l think that Jackie Earle Haley humanized him in a way that the book could never have done. I really found myself admiring his methods, if not always who he employed them on!

Julie: My favorite character in the book was Night Owl. I hated Rorschach -- more from disgust and that he was so violent. I was never quite sure how I felt about the Comedian but knew I hated Silk Spectre (both versions but especially Sally) After seeing the film I had a complete about face. The Comedian was my favorite and I had a new found love of Rorschach. Suddenly I understood him better. I don't know why, because it was my second time with the material? Not sure. I still found much of his rambling hard to follow but suddenly I saw where his heart was and I saw how weak the Nite Owl was. My opinions on the girls have not changed though. I didn't find Laurie quite as weak this time, and I understood Sally much better. She didn't apologize for what she had done, but she had great regrets. I never liked Dr. Manhattan, but his cold aloofness made sense this time around, he actually came off as incredibly sensitive in a very childlike way.

Mike: Her red hair was cool, and I liked her aging and not apologizing for her past. I thought she was feisty when she fought back when the Comedian tried to attack her, and when she told him off about hitting on this daughter. I thought Rorschach had principles, and was human, and I enjoyed the fight scenes in the alley. I thought that the perfect man was too good of a fighter compared to the other characters.

Julie: I agree with what you both said about Rorschach -- he did have solid beliefs and principals, was just mixed up in how he went about his work. Why do I like the Comedian? Lord, how do I answer that one? He's a bad boy bad ass, carried away by the power and accolades and then laid low in his old age with regrets on so many levels. He's a man's man, dead sexy, and yet unbelievably harsh. He simply separated himself from man to make what he did ok in his own mind. He'd chosen his own path. While the first time around I found it hard to like anyone and went with Nite Owl because he seemed like a nice kind guy who was a bit lost, this time he was such a weak and uninspiring guy, but we got to see him turn around in a big way. That change seemed more obvious to me in the film but maybe that was just my imagination.

Which brings me to a question someone sends you from Twitter ... was it REALLY obvious who the bad guy of the story was?

Mike: Yes, but somewhat disappointing. I thought that the destruction of [New York] for peace was a little lame. What would exist after nuclear attack? I think Nixon was really a bad guy in real life, but thought the end was a little far fetched about peace, love, and group hugs achieved through thermal nuclear annihilation. [It] was kind of far reaching.

That's the big question of the ending that a lot of fans of the book didn't think people would get ... whether or not Ozymandias' plan would actually work. In the book, he doesn't bomb cities, he creates a fake alien to attack and destroy New York, so that mankind focuses their hatred outward instead of inward. They replaced the giant alien with Doctor Manhattan's power.

Mike: Society always wants to retaliate against someone. In 9/11 we wanted to strike back but against who? I wonder what President Obama thinks, they said on Meet the Press and other shows he was anticipating the movie. He has so much stress but loves superheroes. What would he do in Nixon's shoes in the movie?

Julie: The bad guy was very obvious in the film -- a fault of someone, the actor? the director? Not sure. It was much more of a shock to me in the book. I liked the film ending better than the book -- I was never a fan of the whole squid thing on several levels -- there were far too many people involved to cover all that up. Dr. Manhattan seems the perfect fall guy. As for would this bring peace? No, I don't think so. I don't think violence breeds anything but more violence. Of course we want retribution for something like 9/11. We had a clear enemy and most of them died in the planes. How do you hate all of Russia when it takes one man to push a button? Would there be group hand holding over the crater of NY? No. I think some idiot would scream cover up and launch on Russia. Boom. No more world. Oh, and on facing your hate outward? So you make this fake squid so everyone hates ET? Hate is hate and it is always bad. Fear is something else. Like we aren't all afraid that Signs will come true anyway. I better go get some aluminum foil and make a cap for my head so the aliens can't read my thoughts.

What do you think of Rorschach's journal being found at the end? In the book, the New Frontiersman was very sleazy, conspiracy-theory sort of paper. I don't know if that comes through.

Mike: I liked that, it would take a Enquirer or Globe type of tabloid to publish the diary. It gave meaning to the movie and the narration. He said when it was discovered he would be dead and I thought was a good way for it to be found in a crank file. I immediately thought of Conspriracy Theory with Mel Gibson the crank doing articles and chaining his coffee cans, but in reality was actually seeing things that really occurred.

Julie: Ahhh ... the journal. I need to reread the end of the book, but I have the distinct memory that the fat guy reaches for the diary and then sort of tosses it aside with a ho hum while stuffing his face, and you are left unsure of where it will end up. In the film the fat dude is much more on top of things and I felt very secure that Rorschach's story would be told. Question is, will anyone every understand the ramblings of a believed psychopath? I'd like to think the truth will come out and the real bad guy will get his due. That the world will be wiser and kinder in the end. Did I get it?

What were your major problems with the movie and the story? Or did you feel like there were huge gaps in it?

Mike: I thought the big gap was the progression of the superheros through the decades, and how did they form, what was their purpose and why were they outlawed, was it the uncontrolled violence. Were they just like CIA spooks, a.k.a. Cigarette Smoking Man? I guess I am used to sending out the Bat Signal, and Superman saving children, and sucking up flood waters as superheroes. They said that masks were outlawed so I guess that is the biggest gap for me never having read the book -- who are these people really in society? Why are people rioting in the one scene with the Comedian, and the signs read give us back our badges? That is my biggest gap.

Julie: The ending is the big obvious one for me. Not the change in the story, but the power of the ending. My heart was broken with the book. All these people I had come to know and care about were gone and then Rorschach. And Manhattan was standing around like a dumb child wondering if he should care about life ... and then BOOM. No more NY. That impact was seriously missing in the film. Instead I was like "There went NY!" Instead, my heart broke over Rorschach screaming in the snow, "Just do it!" I felt the storyline in that instant shifted. This was about superheros and what makes one, and how they were and what happened to them. And the one who was the most hated, the most violent was the truest. He had stayed the course. Remained true to the end. His death becomes huge in that instant. Obviously there are a great many details and backstories missing. Some I missed more than others. I still think that given the scope of the material Zack Snyder did an amazing job trying to cover it all. To a newbie some of this might be much more crucial to the understanding. Even in the book there were dangling tidbits you never quite understand. I don't think you could have asked for much more visually. The world was so real. Amazing job all around.

Follow me on Twitter!