I hope the same people who were offended by a penis never have kids, or see themselves or their partner naked, or join my nudist colony.
It’s just a penis. I doubt the boys complaining about this would complain if Laurie was the one naked during the entire film. There are plenty of reasons that someone might dislike this film (I enjoyed it, but there were parts/elements/acting that I wasn’t crazy about), but being offended at the human form isn’t one of them. Some people need to grow some fucking perspective!!
I can’t take you seriously anymore… see what I did there??.. No???.. I’ll get my coat…
I took my daughter with me to see it. Guess what. F*ck anyone that thinks I shouldn’t have taken my kid to see this movie. Cos you know what? She LOVED this film! And she didn’t say one word about the penis. We’ve had the boy parts/girl parts talk before, and she was fine with it.
People keep talking about the penis and genitalia and whatnot, I can’t say I saw very much of the sort. Maybe I was concentrating on what mattered in the scene, maybe I just have a natural inclination to not want to look at a person’s (much less a man’s) body in that way whilst watching a film, trying to be captivated by it, but all these revelations of seeing more man-skin than any other film, can’t say I noticed.
[quote=“Serious Kenneth”]
this is so funny: ;D
<LINK_TEXT text=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjDFz-eJ … annel_page”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjDFz-eJCDU&feature=channel_page</LINK_TEXT>[/quote]
Hehe, we all know how annoying that is!
The penis part was brilliant
whipping out man’s best part is becoming the new thing in Hollywood.
Appearently there are some firemen in the open in the new Seth Rogen comedy “Observe and Report”:
“key male demographic will be horrified to find the graphic nudity is primarily of the non-female persuasion”
(early IMDB.com review)
I don’t see what the big deal is about a man being nude. Critics say nothing if there is a naked woman in a film being exploited but see a naked man and the world comes crashing down.
[quote=“nublob”]
I don’t see what the big deal is about a man being nude. Critics say nothing if there is a naked woman in a film being exploited but see a naked man and the world comes crashing down.
[/quote]
Well, the people who complain about this kind of thing tend to be either ignorant, conservatives who don’t feel comfortable in their own skin and feel the need to underline their heterosexuality or else just prudes who’d prefer people to be clothed all the goddamn time.
Any guy who complains about seeing a penis has got some self awareness issues… cause he’s probably got a penis himself 
I’ve just read through eight replies of people not bothered by Dr. Manhattan’s man meat - was there anyone here who actually was? I went and seen the film with a fourteen year old guy and twenty year old guy - neither were bothered by it. It’s something unusual that you don’t see in many mainstream films, and often a goldmine for comedy, but I personally haven’t had any run-ins with anyone actually offended. The only people I could imagine being offended are those not comfortable with the male form - and if they aren’t, so be it for them. If they’re not comfortable with male nudity, I won’t force it upon them.
Therefor, if you’re looking for a movie to go see with your mom - and the thought of staring at a big blue cock next to her might make you feel awkward, Watchmen might not be the movie for you. :laugh:
I was more embarassed by the ridiculous sex scene. The whole tone of the film shifted to that of your typical porno. The accompanying scenes all of a sudden turnen into the two main characters wanting to have sex. Also, are we expected to believe she fell for him just like that? If so, why can’t shit like that happen to me :’(
[quote=“Ify”]
I was more embarassed by the ridiculous sex scene. The whole tone of the film shifted to that of your typical porno. The accompanying scenes all of a sudden turnen into the two main characters wanting to have sex. Also, are we expected to believe she fell for him just like that? If so, why can’t shit like that happen to me :’(
[/quote]
Not only couldn’t Alan sexually satisfy Laurie anymore, more importantly he drifted away from her and doesn’t recognize her (“people are like shadows passing by to him”). Laurie then looked for the “comfort of an old friend”, Alan (former Nite Owl) Alan lives in fear, most of all from who he really is inside. It was made very clear that he couldn’t sexually perform due to this. As soon as he confronts his fears and is one with himself again he can pleasure Laurie again. This culminates in a beautiful sex scene that ends with the flamethrower thing.
It’s pretty cool stuff, if you ask me.
[quote=“Ify”]
If so, why can’t shit like that happen to me :’(
[/quote]
The same thing could happen to you, minus the whole Nite Owl vigilante thing.
[quote=“Ify”]
I was more embarassed by the ridiculous sex scene. The whole tone of the film shifted to that of your typical porno. The accompanying scenes all of a sudden turnen into the two main characters wanting to have sex. Also, are we expected to believe she fell for him just like that? If so, why can’t shit like that happen to me :’(
[/quote]
In the novel it felt very natural and it made sense because they’d firmly established the relationship between Dan and Laurie and the reasons behind it. In the film it just felt like an obligatory sex scene for the soul purpose of showing Malin Ackerman nude. It didn’t help that the Leonard Cohen track felt like a score from a porno.
[quote=“Serious Kenneth”]
Not only couldn’t Alan sexually satisfy Laurie anymore, more importantly he drifted away from her and doesn’t recognize her (“people are like shadows passing by to him”). Laurie then looked for the “comfort of an old friend”, Alan (former Nite Owl) Alan lives in fear, most of all from who he really is inside. It was made very clear that he couldn’t sexually perform due to this. As soon as he confronts his fears and is one with himself again he can pleasure Laurie again. This culminates in a beautiful sex scene that ends with the flamethrower thing.
It’s pretty cool stuff, if you ask me.
[/quote]
I think having read the novel, it is preventing you from objectively reviewing the film. I guess it makes sense when most of the people who loved the film read the novel first.
[quote=“Serious Kenneth”]
The same thing could happen to you, minus the whole Nite Owl vigilante thing.
[/quote]
But that’s the part I want :’(
[quote=“Noir_Fiction”]
In the novel it felt very natural and it made sense because they’d firmly established the relationship between Dan and Laurie and the reasons behind it. In the film it just felt like an obligatory sex scene for the soul purpose of showing Malin Ackerman nude. It didn’t help that the Leonard Cohen track felt like a score from a porno.
[/quote]
Hallelujah!
[quote=“Ify”]
I was more embarassed by the ridiculous sex scene. The whole tone of the film shifted to that of your typical porno. The accompanying scenes all of a sudden turnen into the two main characters wanting to have sex. Also, are we expected to believe she fell for him just like that? If so, why can’t shit like that happen to me :’(
[/quote]Well, the dude had been flacid whilst a very attractive woman was grinding all up on top of him earlier that night - the guy deserved the 100-gun salute and at least a firm shake of the hand for finally getting it up there and laying it down like he did ;D I can definitely agree that something other than Hallelujah should have been played during that scene though. Kind of offputting.
The set up for their love affair was pretty reasoned for me though. They’re old friends who have just re-introduced themselves, she is feeling lost without any kind of love or human care from her supposed husband - while Dan is the respectful, caring and most of all human lover that she has always wanted. She’s essentially the girl who fell in love with the bad boy but now looks for the responsible man to spend her days with. That’s all stuff right there in the film and not necessarily anything you need to have read the book to take from.
And don’t worry, you’re find the right super-heroine some day, she’s out patrolling rooftops for just the right moment 
Word of advice: start getting mugged on the streets as often as possible, she’ll just HAVE to turn up!
I haven’t read the graphic novel, which I think it part of the reason I love it so much. I didn’t have any pre-concieved notions, no expectations, haven’t even seen trailers or TV spots, a Watchmen tabula rasa if you will.
[quote=“Crazy Kenneth”]
I haven’t read the graphic novel, which I think it part of the reason I love it so much. I didn’t have any pre-concieved notions, no expectations, haven’t even seen trailers or TV spots, a Watchmen tabula rasa if you will.
[/quote]
You haven’t read the novel? You should, I hear it’s better than the film ;D
LOL, yeah - when a movie is based on a book it somehow prevents people from accepting that movies are a different medium and don’t necessarily have to reflect EVERYTHING that was in the book.
But I look forward to reading it, I already seen some of it and the look is great, and if the language and writing is as great as in the movie, then I’ll be happy.
Did anyone see that blue penis? I say he was about a 7 incher. Which is alright, I mean not bad for a superhero with god-like powers.
I finished the GN. It’s not nearly as much of a satisfying experience as the movie was, but I must admit that I was mentally reconstructing the movie most of the time. There are a few scenes and a couple of lines where I’m sorry that they didn’t make the cut, and would LOVE to see in a future cut of Watchmen (which will come, if you haven’t heard). The whole chapter 6 (Rorschach and the Rorschach tests) played out beautifully in the GN, so I hope they will enhance this section of the movie.
I’m currently downloading a DVD rip of the Director’s Cut of my 2nd favourite movie of all time - WATCHMEN!
But don’t worry all you law-abiding citizens, for I will surley pay over 100 Euro for various editions of the movie on Blu Ray later.