<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Watchmen— Taking On The Movie Reviewing Machine</title>
	<atom:link href="http://therumpus.net/2009/03/watchmen%e2%80%94-taking-on-the-movie-reviewing-machine/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://therumpus.net/2009/03/watchmen%e2%80%94-taking-on-the-movie-reviewing-machine/</link>
	<description>Books, Music, Movies, Art, Politics, Sex, Other</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:45:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bradley</title>
		<link>http://therumpus.net/2009/03/watchmen%e2%80%94-taking-on-the-movie-reviewing-machine/comment-page-1/#comment-1452</link>
		<dc:creator>Bradley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Mar 2009 23:09:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://therumpus.net/?p=10045#comment-1452</guid>
		<description>Oh, I&#039;ve got all of the Morrison Batman stuff, believe me.  And I don&#039;t think that pointing out that Batman is, ultimately, kind of silly (He&#039;s a rich guy who wears a cape and beats people up because his parents are dead) necessarily dismisses him-- I like that outrageous, weird stuff.  A lot.  But I think, in general, when writers try to write a &quot;psychologically-realistic&quot; Batman (in the sense that the &lt;i&gt;Watchmen&lt;/i&gt; characters strike me as psychologically-realistic), the result isn&#039;t nearly as interesting (or good) as the weird and fun stuff that people like Grant Morrison or (showing my age) Steve Englehart have written about the character.  Because Batman, at his core, is completely unrealistic, psychologically-speaking.

And actually, I think I do have just about everything Morrison&#039;s written-- for American publishers, anyway.  He&#039;s the only comic book writer I really follow these days (in fact, at his best, I think he&#039;s better than Alan Moore-- an opinion that strikes most of my comic-reading friends as blasphemy).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh, I&#8217;ve got all of the Morrison Batman stuff, believe me.  And I don&#8217;t think that pointing out that Batman is, ultimately, kind of silly (He&#8217;s a rich guy who wears a cape and beats people up because his parents are dead) necessarily dismisses him&#8211; I like that outrageous, weird stuff.  A lot.  But I think, in general, when writers try to write a &#8220;psychologically-realistic&#8221; Batman (in the sense that the <i>Watchmen</i> characters strike me as psychologically-realistic), the result isn&#8217;t nearly as interesting (or good) as the weird and fun stuff that people like Grant Morrison or (showing my age) Steve Englehart have written about the character.  Because Batman, at his core, is completely unrealistic, psychologically-speaking.</p>
<p>And actually, I think I do have just about everything Morrison&#8217;s written&#8211; for American publishers, anyway.  He&#8217;s the only comic book writer I really follow these days (in fact, at his best, I think he&#8217;s better than Alan Moore&#8211; an opinion that strikes most of my comic-reading friends as blasphemy).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jono</title>
		<link>http://therumpus.net/2009/03/watchmen%e2%80%94-taking-on-the-movie-reviewing-machine/comment-page-1/#comment-1450</link>
		<dc:creator>Jono</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Mar 2009 21:38:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://therumpus.net/?p=10045#comment-1450</guid>
		<description>I&#039;d have to disagree with your last paragraph, Bradley (although I certainly can&#039;t find much fault with the rest of your comment.)  Batman certainly CAN be about a guy in a cape, but to dismiss him entirely as that is pretty flimsy; there can&#039;t be a powerful, important, artistic, revolutionary Batman story just because his name is Batman?  You change his name to Nite-Owl and give him Blue Beetle&#039;s personality (showing my nerdness here) and now it&#039;s acceptable?  Grant Morrison&#039;s current run on Batman has been mindblowing.  I highly recommend you pick up the hardcovers of his Batman and Final Crisis (and really, everything he&#039;s ever written.)

But yes, you&#039;re right, Cap/Wolf was way better than Watchmen.  I frankly feel embarrassed to have omitted it.  Still, the far superior tale has to be X-Force.  Because mutants+big guns+Rob Liefeld=AWESOME</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;d have to disagree with your last paragraph, Bradley (although I certainly can&#8217;t find much fault with the rest of your comment.)  Batman certainly CAN be about a guy in a cape, but to dismiss him entirely as that is pretty flimsy; there can&#8217;t be a powerful, important, artistic, revolutionary Batman story just because his name is Batman?  You change his name to Nite-Owl and give him Blue Beetle&#8217;s personality (showing my nerdness here) and now it&#8217;s acceptable?  Grant Morrison&#8217;s current run on Batman has been mindblowing.  I highly recommend you pick up the hardcovers of his Batman and Final Crisis (and really, everything he&#8217;s ever written.)</p>
<p>But yes, you&#8217;re right, Cap/Wolf was way better than Watchmen.  I frankly feel embarrassed to have omitted it.  Still, the far superior tale has to be X-Force.  Because mutants+big guns+Rob Liefeld=AWESOME</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bradley</title>
		<link>http://therumpus.net/2009/03/watchmen%e2%80%94-taking-on-the-movie-reviewing-machine/comment-page-1/#comment-1441</link>
		<dc:creator>Bradley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Mar 2009 16:25:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://therumpus.net/?p=10045#comment-1441</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve shared these thoughts with Amy already, but figured I&#039;d post them here too:

I haven&#039;t seen the movie yet-- less than two hours to go, though!-- so I can&#039;t comment on the film itself, but I thought A.O. Scott wildly missed the mark in his appraisal of the original book in his discussion of the film. His conclusion that the book&#039;s &quot;shallow nihilism... [and ] intellectual pretensions&quot; argue that &quot;the only action that makes sense in this world — the only sure basis for ethics or politics, the only expression of love or loyalty or conviction — is killing&quot; is actually the exact opposite of the book&#039;s ethos. You have to ignore huge parts of the story to walk away with that-- it&#039;s like concluding that the point of Oedipus Rex is &quot;if you wanna bang your mom, make sure you kill the blind seer when you kill your dad.&quot;

The point of &lt;i&gt;Watchmen&lt;/i&gt; (the book), I think, is that even well-intentioned violence (like the type celebrated in superhero comics since 1938) is ultimately destructive of both the culture and the individual. Once you start using force to solve problems, you become that guy on his raft made of dead people, eating raw seagulls, blind to your own barbarism.

And Anthony Lane, I&#039;ve concluded, simply hates movies. I like the other &lt;i&gt;New Yorker&lt;/i&gt; reviewer quite a bit, but Lane always seems too impressed with his own &quot;cleverness&quot; as he make snide and, frankly, stupid insults at the movie&#039;s expense. I still remember his review of Superman Returns-- a movie that had plenty of legitimate flaws to point out-- which was pretty limited to &quot;Oh, I&#039;m so sure. This is so stupid. Like people can really fly.&quot; You kinda wanna grab the guy by the shoulders and tell him, &quot;They&#039;re not claiming it&#039;s a documentary, you halfwit!&quot;

And Jono: Batman &lt;i&gt;is&lt;/i&gt; about a guy in a cape.  And, much as I love &lt;i&gt;Watchmen&lt;/i&gt; (the book), calling it &quot;the best work of fiction in the English language&quot; might be just a bit of a stretch.  I mean, what about that &lt;i&gt;Captain America&lt;/i&gt; storyline from the 90s where Cap was turned into a werewolf...?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve shared these thoughts with Amy already, but figured I&#8217;d post them here too:</p>
<p>I haven&#8217;t seen the movie yet&#8211; less than two hours to go, though!&#8211; so I can&#8217;t comment on the film itself, but I thought A.O. Scott wildly missed the mark in his appraisal of the original book in his discussion of the film. His conclusion that the book&#8217;s &#8220;shallow nihilism&#8230; [and ] intellectual pretensions&#8221; argue that &#8220;the only action that makes sense in this world — the only sure basis for ethics or politics, the only expression of love or loyalty or conviction — is killing&#8221; is actually the exact opposite of the book&#8217;s ethos. You have to ignore huge parts of the story to walk away with that&#8211; it&#8217;s like concluding that the point of Oedipus Rex is &#8220;if you wanna bang your mom, make sure you kill the blind seer when you kill your dad.&#8221;</p>
<p>The point of <i>Watchmen</i> (the book), I think, is that even well-intentioned violence (like the type celebrated in superhero comics since 1938) is ultimately destructive of both the culture and the individual. Once you start using force to solve problems, you become that guy on his raft made of dead people, eating raw seagulls, blind to your own barbarism.</p>
<p>And Anthony Lane, I&#8217;ve concluded, simply hates movies. I like the other <i>New Yorker</i> reviewer quite a bit, but Lane always seems too impressed with his own &#8220;cleverness&#8221; as he make snide and, frankly, stupid insults at the movie&#8217;s expense. I still remember his review of Superman Returns&#8211; a movie that had plenty of legitimate flaws to point out&#8211; which was pretty limited to &#8220;Oh, I&#8217;m so sure. This is so stupid. Like people can really fly.&#8221; You kinda wanna grab the guy by the shoulders and tell him, &#8220;They&#8217;re not claiming it&#8217;s a documentary, you halfwit!&#8221;</p>
<p>And Jono: Batman <i>is</i> about a guy in a cape.  And, much as I love <i>Watchmen</i> (the book), calling it &#8220;the best work of fiction in the English language&#8221; might be just a bit of a stretch.  I mean, what about that <i>Captain America</i> storyline from the 90s where Cap was turned into a werewolf&#8230;?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jono</title>
		<link>http://therumpus.net/2009/03/watchmen%e2%80%94-taking-on-the-movie-reviewing-machine/comment-page-1/#comment-1393</link>
		<dc:creator>Jono</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2009 19:19:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://therumpus.net/?p=10045#comment-1393</guid>
		<description>What, you expected them to get it or something?  They still think Batman&#039;s about a guy in a cape, Mondrian paints squares, and David Bowie&#039;s a creepy fag.  You thought they&#039;d have the mind for the best work of fiction in the English language?  Not likely.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What, you expected them to get it or something?  They still think Batman&#8217;s about a guy in a cape, Mondrian paints squares, and David Bowie&#8217;s a creepy fag.  You thought they&#8217;d have the mind for the best work of fiction in the English language?  Not likely.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

