HBO’s ‘Watchmen’ tv series

[Eisen]

Heath Ledger and Joaquin Phoenix weren't Cesar Romero-y enough for me as the Joker either.

I thought I was the only one.

 

[David Dennison]

I thought I was the only one.

Mark Hamill #1.

 

[Kale Hulls]

The anti-woke crowd is slowly becoming as easily offended as the SJWs they so despise.

Not sure what you mean by this, can you clarify?

 

[Tkachuk4MVP]

Not sure what you mean by this, can you clarify?

Stuff like the Ghostbusters remake outrage and the backlash this show is getting for being too political/SJW. It’s all the same no matter what side of the aisle you’re on. People getting easily/overly offended over things that aren’t that big a deal.

 

[Kale Hulls]

Stuff like the Ghostbusters remake outrage and the backlash this show is getting for being too political/SJW. It’s all the same no matter what side of the aisle you’re on. People getting easily/overly offended over harmless entertainment.

I'm offended because the original vision is fubar. Its like if they called The Lion King William Shakespeare's Hamlet. Like no..... how do you even think..?

 

[Emperoreddy]

Stuff like the Ghostbusters remake outrage and the backlash this show is getting for being too political/SJW. It’s all the same no matter what side of the aisle you’re on. People getting easily/overly offended over things that aren’t that big a deal.

It’s generally just one subset of people ranting and raving on IMDB about keeping politics out of their Watchmen...which is kind of hilarious.

 

[Emperoreddy]

I am buying the idea Judd was involved in the White Night and might be the reason Regina King’s character wasn’t killed (her flashback shows two attackers, but later in the hospital Judd only mentions she killed one attacker, never mentioned the other)

 

[Scandale du Jour]

It’s generally just one subset of people ranting and raving on IMDB about keeping politics out of their Watchmen...which is kind of hilarious.

Considering that Watchmen was very political in nature, yeah!

 

[NyQuil]

I'm offended because the original vision is fubar. Its like if they called The Lion King William Shakespeare's Hamlet. Like no..... how do you even think..?

It's a no-win situation.

If they had gone over the same ground again, people would be complaining about the lack of originality.

So far, I think they've done an elegant job of linking the series to the original characters and events without relying wholesale upon them.

 

[Blender]

I haven't watched this yet. I generally dislike superhero/comicbook stuff but love HBO, so not sure where this one will fall.

 

[Kale Hulls]

I haven't watched this yet. I generally dislike superhero/comicbook stuff but love HBO, so not sure where this one will fall.

Snyder's Watchmen is extremely abbreviated, but it does a much better job of getting the idea of each character across. That is the easiest entry imo, but the best would be the original comic books, and remember the cold war was a real threat then to the point that people were building bomb shelters in their back yards.

 

[Disappointed EP40]

All the race baiting has absolutely nothing to do with Moore's original work. I find it offensive and am dropping the show.

race baiting?

u don't really get Moore's original work if you can't piece together whats happening

 

[Shareefruck]

It's a no-win situation.

If they had gone over the same ground again, people would be complaining about the lack of originality.

So far, I think they've done an elegant job of linking the series to the original characters and events without relying wholesale upon them.

A no-win situation is a pretty good reason not to do something in the first place, no?

I haven't seen the show yet (not sure I will), but I do think it would be deeply unfortunate and offensive if they took Moore original vision (which yes, was deeply political) and turned it into a vehicle for the usual uninspired brand of wokeness. Not sure if there's actually a hint of that, though.

 

[Pilky01]

Granted it is only two episodes but the show feels like "a win" to me so far.

 

[David Dennison]

A no-win situation is a pretty good reason not to do something in the first place.

I haven't seen the show yet (not sure I will), but I do think it would be deeply unfortunate and offensive if they took Moore original vision (which yes, was deeply political) and turned it into a vehicle for the usual uninspired brand of wokeness. Not sure if there's actually a hint of that, though.

Who will cancel the cancel culture? People who are offended over things they haven't seen, apparently.

Maybe let the show play out before you critique its political lean (or ya know, watch it). The 'woke' side beat the shit out of a bunch of people last episode and are on the side of masked policemen.

Maybe, just maybe, we are only two episodes in and the events portrayed so far might not be exactly as they seem? Maybe there is someone behind the curtain pulling the strings making this stuff happen? In Watchmen? No that can't be, it's not like that was THE CENTRAL STORY ARC OF THE ORIGINAL.

 

[Shareefruck]

Who will cancel the cancel culture? People who are offended over things they haven't seen, apparently.

Maybe let the show play out before you critique its political lean (or ya know, watch it). The 'woke' side beat the **** out of a bunch of people last episode and are on the side of masked policemen.

Maybe, just maybe, we are only two episodes in and the events portrayed so far might not be exactly as they seem? Maybe there is someone behind the curtain pulling the strings making this stuff happen? In Watchmen? No that can't be, it's not like that was THE CENTRAL STORY ARC OF THE ORIGINAL.

Uhh, relax-- You're totally misreading what I wrote and overreacting-- there's no need to be so knee-jerk defensive. I didn't critique or pass judgment on the show at all-- I merely suggested that if ______ were hypothetically the case, that would in fact be unfortunate and offensive. In other words, "The original was political too!" or "It's a lose-lose situation-- what are you going to do?" wouldn't be sufficient justification that would invalidate the critique, in my mind.

I specifically noted that I don't know if the show is actually guilty of what people are accusing it of-- I'm not even saying if I think the criticism is more likely to be true than not-- Frankly, both takes are skeptical to me and I find that you can't really trust opinions on artistic integrity in either direction when the climate is so politically charged. If there's more nuance or purpose to it that's in line with the thrust of the original than what it's being accused of and the people who are doing so are completely out to lunch or bigoted or whatever, great-- I didn't imply anything that suggested otherwise and it would not shock me if that were the case.

All of that is completely fair to acknowledge without watching the show.

 

[David Dennison]

Uhh, relax-- You're totally misreading what I wrote and overreacting-- there's no need to be so knee-jerk defensive. I didn't critique or pass judgment on the show at all-- I merely suggested that if ______ were hypothetically the case, that would in fact be unfortunate and offensive. In other words, "The original was political too!" or "It's a lose-lose situation-- what are you going to do?" wouldn't be sufficient justification that would invalidate the critique, in my mind.

I specifically noted that I don't know if the show is actually guilty of what people are accusing it of-- I'm not even saying if I think the criticism is more likely to be true than not-- Frankly, both takes are skeptical to me and I find that you can't really trust opinions on artistic integrity in either direction when the climate is so politically charged. If there's more nuance or purpose to it that's in line with the thrust of the original than what it's being accused of and the people who are doing so are completely out to lunch or bigoted or whatever, great-- I didn't imply anything that suggested otherwise and it would not shock me if that were the case.

All of that is completely fair to acknowledge without watching the show.

You are working real hard to not watch this show. I don't put this much thought into things that I actually do.

Its a TV show, it doesn't bite. In the amount of time you have spent talking about other people's opinions of the show, you could have watched both episodes and made up your own damn mind.

 

[Shareefruck]

You are working real hard to not watch this show. I don't put this much thought into things that I actually do.

Its a TV show, it doesn't bite. In the amount of time you have spent talking about other people's opinions of the show, you could have watched both episodes and made up your own damn mind.

I'm really not, though.

The whole "woke politics in entertainment" argument is prevalent all over media and is an interesting/engaging topic of conversation to discuss, outside of this specific show. There are some arguments within it that I find disingenuous or not totally rational/conclusive sometimes, so I'll often comment on what I find fair or unfair about them-- It's fun to talk about these things and organize your thoughts on them.

You're right that I could have watched the show in that time, but I honestly find the discussion more intriguing and worthwhile than any curiosity I have about the show itself being any good. I don't see what's wrong with that as long as I don't overstep into making unreasonable assertions based on information I don't have, which I don't think I have (even though your previous post suggested that).

 

[David Dennison]

I'm really not, though.

The whole "woke politics in entertainment" argument is prevalent all over media and is an interesting/engaging topic of conversation to discuss, outside of this specific show. There are some arguments within it that I find disingenuous or not totally rational/conclusive sometimes, so I'll often comment on what I find fair or unfair about them-- It's fun to talk about these things and organize your thoughts on them.

You're right that I could have watched the show in that time, but I honestly find the discussion more intriguing and worthwhile than any curiosity I have about the show itself being any good. I don't see what's wrong with that as long as I don't overstep into making unreasonable assertions based on information I don't have, which I don't think I have (even though your previous post suggested that).

So the debate over the percieved politics of the show is more important than whether the show actually is putting forth those politics or not? It unites us against a common straw man.

So its like if a superhero faked an alien attack to unite humanity? Its irrelevant whether the alien attack was real or not because it united us, right?

Boy do I have a great graphic novel recommendation for you.

 

[Shareefruck]

So the debate over the politics of the show is more important than whether the show actually is putting forth those politics or not? It unites us against a common straw man.

So its like if a superhero faked an alien attack to unite humanity? Its irrelevant whether the alien attack was real or not because it united us, right?

Boy do I have a great graphic novel recommendation for you.

Uhhh.. This post is a huge strawman and reach.

Unites us against a common strawman? What are you even talking about? I didn't say truth was irrelevant-- it's very relevant, which is why I'm not making judgements, I'm making conditional arguments based on whatever the facts that I don't have may or may not be while acknowledging that caveat. How is this even remotely a point of contention?

I feel like you're assuming that I have an agenda that I don't.

 

[Shareefruck]

So the debate over the percieved politics of the show is more important than whether the show actually is putting forth those politics or not? It unites us against a common straw man.

So its like if a superhero faked an alien attack to unite humanity? Its irrelevant whether the alien attack was real or not because it united us, right?

Boy do I have a great graphic novel recommendation for you.

Here, let me clarify my position so that there's no confusion:

1. Some critics think that the original spirit of the show is compromised by an attempt to push a woke narrative. (I have no thoughts on whether this is true or not, although it's a topic of interest)

2. Some defenders argue that the show is not pushing a woke narrative or (your suggestion) may be building towards something more nuanced (I have no thoughts on whether this is true or not and have no problem with this position).

3. Some other defenders instead argue "So what if it does? The original is very political as well."

4. I argued only against point 3, basically suggesting that "to be fair, if it is hypothetically guilty of that, which it may not be, that would in fact be very unfortunate and would compromise the spirit of the original-- It is a real danger that some shows do fall to, and it can harm the experience." The fact that the original was also political wouldn't be a valid counterargument to that concern.

Now, which part of that do you have a problem with and why do you think I would need to watch the show to be able to justify making point 4? At best, it feels like you're arguing for the possibility of point 2, but I didn't imply anything about that being wrong.

 

[NyQuil]

A no-win situation is a pretty good reason not to do something in the first place, no?

I haven't seen the show yet (not sure I will), but I do think it would be deeply unfortunate and offensive if they took Moore original vision (which yes, was deeply political) and turned it into a vehicle for the usual uninspired brand of wokeness. Not sure if there's actually a hint of that, though.

You'll never really know.

I do know that crapping all over every adaptation of anything Alan Moore wrote is getting pretty uninspired these days. It's lazy. Not that I'm accusing you of doing that.

The only definitive comment that can be made about the thematic foundation of the show is that it's too premature to be even close to being conclusive.

 

[Shareefruck]

You'll never really know.

I do know that crapping all over every adaptation of anything Alan Moore wrote is getting pretty uninspired these days. It's lazy. Not that I'm accusing you of doing that.

The only definitive comment that can be made about the thematic foundation of the show is that it's too premature to be even close to being conclusive.

This is kind of going off on a tangent about a pet peeve, but I've never really sympathized with this type of sentiment in general, personally. If you feel that something is wrong in principle, but it keeps happening anyways-- That feeling doesn't become less relevant/pertinent just because the thing that you object to keeps getting back in the spotlight-- if anything it becomes more relevant the more often it happens. Given that, I don't know what calling something like that "uninspired" really even amounts to. We should discuss things for the sake of honesty and truth, IMO, not for the sake of perceived originality and "fresh takes". Complaining about someone "beating a dead horse" has never made much sense to me, especially when in reality, it usually only happens when the horse is actually alive and kicking-- in which case, I usually respect and encourage people who stubbornly beat away repetitively-- After all, they're up against insurmountable odds.

 

[Balls Mahoney]

A woke comic book show with the original meaning and characters all changed around? How fresh.

 

[NyQuil]

This is kind of going off on a tangent about a pet peeve, but I've never really sympathized with this type of sentiment in general, personally. If you feel that something is wrong in principle, but it keeps happening anyways-- That feeling doesn't become less relevant/pertinent just because the thing that you object to keeps getting back in the spotlight-- if anything it becomes more relevant the more often it happens.

It certainly calls objectivity into question when people simply rely on prior paradigms to characterize existing examples.

People will derive conclusions quickly and more easily based largely on past patterns and assumptions.

As I said, it's the laziest form of criticism and typically lacks any kind of rigorous, creative or inspirational evaluation.

Complaining about someone "beating a dead horse" has never made much sense to me.

It is patently obvious to anyone who has ever been in a thread that you've hijacked into yet another deep dive into the nature of your own philosophy on critical analysis.