(NOTE: All "gifts" referred to in this blogpost refer to practical gifts, such as appliances, clothes, etc. Gifts that are tokens of friendship, trust, affection, and such fall under a different category entirely.)
So very recently, I had a back and forth with this friend of mine about the morality of returning a gift to a store. Their argument was that, "Returning a gift is greedy. That person spent time, thought, and money to get that gift for you! To turn around and trade it for some gift card or store credit is wrong. Maybe trading in an article of clothing that doesn't fit right for a proper size, but otherwise, it's just wrong!"
This argument, of course, is understandable. This person is trying to take the feelings of the gift giver into consideration while chastising the behavior of the gifted for being dismissive and greedy.
They also said, "If you really have no use for the gift, give it to charity! Give it to someone less fortunate than yourself!" This is, again, an understandable approach. If we don't need it, give it to someone who does. It's definitely a moral high ground and by all means, it's a course of action I support.
To myself, however, this is merely an option. Perhaps the most morally applicable, but by no means the only means of which one should handle their unwanted gifts. Being morally upstanding at all times is admirable, but grey areas develop in situations such as these.
Often, people forget the meaning of a gift. Gifts are given with the sole purpose of improving the lives of those we give to. To me, suggesting otherwise is selfish. Why would we give a gift to someone, only to feel offended when the gift we gave does not suit their needs? What purpose, then, does our gift serve? Should we demand they keep it as a sign of appreciation? Is the only reason we gift people in the first place just to indept them?
To me, I'd rather that person return any gift at all that I purchase for them of which they have no use. Hell, even if they HAD a use for it, if returning it will get them something that they would enjoy MORE? Then I definitely approve. All I want is for that person's life to be improved by my gift, even if it's so indirectly.
Of course, all this could be avoided if everyone had an Amazon wishlist! :D
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
PDA and BBQ
My sexuality isn't something I make a big deal out of publicly. Sure, I'll post about something pro-Gay rights or make mention of it here or there. But for the most part, I try to just live my life as any other person.
Tonight, though, an issue came to a head which I had to raise with my boyfriend. See, there's this little BBQ place near here called Dan's BBQ. It's a fantastic little place with good BBQ and a DELICIOUS sauce that's always fast and friendly.
It's also very, very conservative.
I'm talking, pro-gun signs, pro-God signs, an absolute atmosphere of conservative (and traditional right-wing) expression. It's also the best BBQ place in town, so Chris and I have been eating from there for the last two years. We enjoy the food, the service, and the atmosphere is even a little charming in ways.
However, a single caveat was always present: We did not act like a couple in the restaurant. We dressed conservatively, we didn't have any physical contact, we wouldn't even call each "hon" or "sweety" or any of our stock pet-names. On an occasion I had, he quickly reminded me that I should be wary, as so not to offend the clientele or the actual staff.
Now, this staff had been known to speak their minds. Telling parents to quiet their children, asking people to leave for inappropriate behavior. We knew it was in our best interest, if we wished to continue our patronage of this establishment, to refrain from projecting any semblance of affection.
Over time, though, something grabbed me on the inside. It tugged at a nerve in my brain, but like a passing itch, I would either just idly touch on it or let it go. However, over the course of the last few months... it came to my attention that it in fact was not a passing itch. It was an issue to be thought out and discussed.
I realized that there was a succinct moral issue that I couldn't any longer abide, and that was acting like something I'm not for the sake of someone else' approval. Now, don't get me wrong. I don't make our with Chris in public. Sometimes we'll hold hands, but usually, it's just a common shoulder bump, maybe a quick peck. But we would always refer to ourselves with the aforementioned pet names, like most couples. We're not showy, but we ARE a couple, and after a while it all sank in that it was not worth acting like we weren't for decent Louisianan BBQ.
Chris, on the other hand, feels that it's not so much of an issue for him. He also thinks that, instead of patronizing the restaurant further but allowing ourselves to act naturally (thus risking the ire and subsequential retaliation from the establishment), we should just stop eating there. This is understandable and, while I don't necessarily agree, I don't hold it against him nor do I think a modicum less of him for it. I would rather we try and be proven right or wrong, one way or the other. I don't necessarily want to TEST it, but I do want to at least give it a chance.
It should also be noted that, while we do live in Lake Charles, Louisiana, this is honest-to-God the only establishment we've gone to where this has been a concern. Every other restaurant or store, it's not an issue. Just this one, considering it's atmosphere.
I mostly make this post because... I am legitimately curious what people will think. It's a curious situation that I'm not sure how to handle 100%.
Tonight, though, an issue came to a head which I had to raise with my boyfriend. See, there's this little BBQ place near here called Dan's BBQ. It's a fantastic little place with good BBQ and a DELICIOUS sauce that's always fast and friendly.
It's also very, very conservative.
I'm talking, pro-gun signs, pro-God signs, an absolute atmosphere of conservative (and traditional right-wing) expression. It's also the best BBQ place in town, so Chris and I have been eating from there for the last two years. We enjoy the food, the service, and the atmosphere is even a little charming in ways.
However, a single caveat was always present: We did not act like a couple in the restaurant. We dressed conservatively, we didn't have any physical contact, we wouldn't even call each "hon" or "sweety" or any of our stock pet-names. On an occasion I had, he quickly reminded me that I should be wary, as so not to offend the clientele or the actual staff.
Now, this staff had been known to speak their minds. Telling parents to quiet their children, asking people to leave for inappropriate behavior. We knew it was in our best interest, if we wished to continue our patronage of this establishment, to refrain from projecting any semblance of affection.
Over time, though, something grabbed me on the inside. It tugged at a nerve in my brain, but like a passing itch, I would either just idly touch on it or let it go. However, over the course of the last few months... it came to my attention that it in fact was not a passing itch. It was an issue to be thought out and discussed.
I realized that there was a succinct moral issue that I couldn't any longer abide, and that was acting like something I'm not for the sake of someone else' approval. Now, don't get me wrong. I don't make our with Chris in public. Sometimes we'll hold hands, but usually, it's just a common shoulder bump, maybe a quick peck. But we would always refer to ourselves with the aforementioned pet names, like most couples. We're not showy, but we ARE a couple, and after a while it all sank in that it was not worth acting like we weren't for decent Louisianan BBQ.
Chris, on the other hand, feels that it's not so much of an issue for him. He also thinks that, instead of patronizing the restaurant further but allowing ourselves to act naturally (thus risking the ire and subsequential retaliation from the establishment), we should just stop eating there. This is understandable and, while I don't necessarily agree, I don't hold it against him nor do I think a modicum less of him for it. I would rather we try and be proven right or wrong, one way or the other. I don't necessarily want to TEST it, but I do want to at least give it a chance.
It should also be noted that, while we do live in Lake Charles, Louisiana, this is honest-to-God the only establishment we've gone to where this has been a concern. Every other restaurant or store, it's not an issue. Just this one, considering it's atmosphere.
I mostly make this post because... I am legitimately curious what people will think. It's a curious situation that I'm not sure how to handle 100%.
Friday, December 9, 2011
Take off your pants and jacket.
Well, since I'm on the road and bored, here's another bout of opinion.
I am not offended by nudity. Not even a little. I grew up around people who raised me to know and understand the human body at an early age, so for me? Breasts, penises, vaginas, and all those other parts that you just giggled at me listing off are just parts of the human body, no different to me than noses, mouths, fingers, etc. To me, showing one's ass is no different than showing one's head (For some people, this is even more apropo.)
As such, I feel that laws we have for the sake of decency are, by and large, asinine. Public Breastfeeding is STILL a hot topic. Why? Because a woman is exposing a NIPPLE? That is unadulterated bullshit. The only reason there's even an issueis because of conservative values and our OBSESSION with sex. If we treated these body parts as just that, parts of the body, and less as perverted symbols of sex that turn us into powerless dogs driven by our hormones, it wouldn't be such an issue.
Some people don't like the idea of devaluing the mystique and eroticism of our bathing suit areas, though. They appreciate the feeling that taboo gives them, the sexual excitement from a tiny bikini or a speedo just barely covering those 'special parts'. To that I say, can you really not separate your sexuality from your daily life? That sounds like a personal problem to me.
But who am I to urge public nudity? I feel uncomfortable without my SHIRT on.
I am not offended by nudity. Not even a little. I grew up around people who raised me to know and understand the human body at an early age, so for me? Breasts, penises, vaginas, and all those other parts that you just giggled at me listing off are just parts of the human body, no different to me than noses, mouths, fingers, etc. To me, showing one's ass is no different than showing one's head (For some people, this is even more apropo.)
As such, I feel that laws we have for the sake of decency are, by and large, asinine. Public Breastfeeding is STILL a hot topic. Why? Because a woman is exposing a NIPPLE? That is unadulterated bullshit. The only reason there's even an issueis because of conservative values and our OBSESSION with sex. If we treated these body parts as just that, parts of the body, and less as perverted symbols of sex that turn us into powerless dogs driven by our hormones, it wouldn't be such an issue.
Some people don't like the idea of devaluing the mystique and eroticism of our bathing suit areas, though. They appreciate the feeling that taboo gives them, the sexual excitement from a tiny bikini or a speedo just barely covering those 'special parts'. To that I say, can you really not separate your sexuality from your daily life? That sounds like a personal problem to me.
But who am I to urge public nudity? I feel uncomfortable without my SHIRT on.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
When I was a kid, the three most magical places in the world for me were all in this one little shopping center near where I grew up: A movie theater, a video game store, and a comic shop. Whenever I'd go out to catch a movie with my friends, we'd always arrive an hour or more early just to test-play some new games at the game store and/or check out some new comics, a habit of which I grew out of as I grew into adulthood. I can definitely that they were some of my fondest memories as a boy; catching friendly faces, exploring my favorite mediums...
All three of those places, however, have radically changed. Visiting a Gamestop is a practice in stamina: How long can I last before I want to turn right the fuck around and leave. It's not just the product pushing, either. It's the atmosphere. No on seems to ENJOY being in a game store anymore. There's no excitement, there's no sense of kinship. Only transaction. No one is happy to work there and about as many are happy to shop there.
Comic book shops, on the other hand, are mostly just... dying. People aren't buying as many comic-books any more and, if they are, they're finding alternative outlets to actual brick and mortar comic shops. Books-A-Million, Barnes and Nobles, plenty of online retailers and hobby stores now cater to the more frugal or less inclined. What were once havens for nerds and geeks and fans alike, they are slowly fading away into a world that no longer needs them.
Movie theaters, however, are fighting for their lives. Unfortunately, they continue to succeed in alienating and aggravating their clientele with each move they make. Ticket prices have hiked to ridiculous highs, popcorn and drinks are more expensive than most sit-down restaurant meals, and now most theaters prioritize 3D movies; traditional screenings are few and far between, sometimes forcing you to either choose a time slot you don't prefer or pay extra for a format you may not give half a squat about.
Personally? I'd like to see Gamestop and major theaters fail, because I am honest to God hoping that once the roof collapses on these terrible business models, they'll realize the key to successful business: Happy costumers. As for comic shops, I do hope their core clientele and the like will find other places to congregate. Most hobby shops are doing their best.
But honestly, if we lose all three, we'll still be able to purchase all of those mediums and enjoy them in kind. We have the internet! And hopefully, nothing will screw that up.
All three of those places, however, have radically changed. Visiting a Gamestop is a practice in stamina: How long can I last before I want to turn right the fuck around and leave. It's not just the product pushing, either. It's the atmosphere. No on seems to ENJOY being in a game store anymore. There's no excitement, there's no sense of kinship. Only transaction. No one is happy to work there and about as many are happy to shop there.
Comic book shops, on the other hand, are mostly just... dying. People aren't buying as many comic-books any more and, if they are, they're finding alternative outlets to actual brick and mortar comic shops. Books-A-Million, Barnes and Nobles, plenty of online retailers and hobby stores now cater to the more frugal or less inclined. What were once havens for nerds and geeks and fans alike, they are slowly fading away into a world that no longer needs them.
Movie theaters, however, are fighting for their lives. Unfortunately, they continue to succeed in alienating and aggravating their clientele with each move they make. Ticket prices have hiked to ridiculous highs, popcorn and drinks are more expensive than most sit-down restaurant meals, and now most theaters prioritize 3D movies; traditional screenings are few and far between, sometimes forcing you to either choose a time slot you don't prefer or pay extra for a format you may not give half a squat about.
Personally? I'd like to see Gamestop and major theaters fail, because I am honest to God hoping that once the roof collapses on these terrible business models, they'll realize the key to successful business: Happy costumers. As for comic shops, I do hope their core clientele and the like will find other places to congregate. Most hobby shops are doing their best.
But honestly, if we lose all three, we'll still be able to purchase all of those mediums and enjoy them in kind. We have the internet! And hopefully, nothing will screw that up.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
I'm bored at the Dallas Airport. So here's a little story from Australia!
I'm bored at the Dallas Airport. So here's a little story from Australia!
It had been a long flight. I mean, a LONG. LONG FLIGHT. And being in a middle seat, I refrained from... using the facilities as often as possible. Well, you can imagine the first place I went post-exiting the plane.
Now, this is something peculiar I noticed about Melbourne rather quickly, thanks in large to this first incident: The urinals very rarely have dividers. Not that I care, but this became instantly relevant when I walked up to the airport urinal. I started doing my thing, minding my own business, before another gentleman stepped up beside me, voiding his bladder in kind.
Not 10 seconds after parking himself next to me, he was staring at my junk. No, not peeking. Not casually catching a glance. He was looking. Right at. My toolkit.
Now, I don't even care, personally. I'm so unabashed when it comes to nudity; I think women should be allowed to go topless anywhere men are. I just couldn't help, though, but think that his behavior might just be, in a word... inappropriate. He seemed like a nice enough guy, a little pale, but not a creep by any means. Here he was, however, studying me like my package would be on the final exam.
I didn't fuss or say anything, as I had no intention of prolonging this magical moment. I zipped, washed, and went on my way. I can only wonder, though... did I leave an impact? I hope I did.
Ah, Australia, first impressions can be so quirky.
It had been a long flight. I mean, a LONG. LONG FLIGHT. And being in a middle seat, I refrained from... using the facilities as often as possible. Well, you can imagine the first place I went post-exiting the plane.
Now, this is something peculiar I noticed about Melbourne rather quickly, thanks in large to this first incident: The urinals very rarely have dividers. Not that I care, but this became instantly relevant when I walked up to the airport urinal. I started doing my thing, minding my own business, before another gentleman stepped up beside me, voiding his bladder in kind.
Not 10 seconds after parking himself next to me, he was staring at my junk. No, not peeking. Not casually catching a glance. He was looking. Right at. My toolkit.
Now, I don't even care, personally. I'm so unabashed when it comes to nudity; I think women should be allowed to go topless anywhere men are. I just couldn't help, though, but think that his behavior might just be, in a word... inappropriate. He seemed like a nice enough guy, a little pale, but not a creep by any means. Here he was, however, studying me like my package would be on the final exam.
I didn't fuss or say anything, as I had no intention of prolonging this magical moment. I zipped, washed, and went on my way. I can only wonder, though... did I leave an impact? I hope I did.
Ah, Australia, first impressions can be so quirky.
Friday, August 12, 2011
Homosexuality and Sesame Street
In my formative years I was exposed to many fine acts of colorful and engaging puppetry via the creative minds at the Jim Henson Company. The Muppets, Dark Crystal, The Labyrinth. But the one I remember the -least- about, funny enough, is actually Sesame Street. Oh, don't get me wrong. I remember sweet ol' Big Bird, the counting Count, adorable Elmo, the... green dude who hung out in a trash can. I remember little things, but for the most part, The Muppets was where I was at.
However, there are two characters that I do remember rather finely, and those are Bert and Ernie. An odd couple living together and, as odd couples tend to do on television, go through many cycles of frustration and hilarity with each other, often the high strung Ernie finding a certain issue with Bert's lackadaisical behavior. The two were friends, though, close and strong.
Over time, though, there were certain people, as they grew from children to worldly adults, that started to get some ideas. Not necessarily bad ideas, mind you, but notions would develop that these two were more than just an odd couple: They were *a* couple. That Bert and Ernie, for all intents and purposes, were romantically involved as homosexual partners.
This is somewhat understandable. They exhibit many qualities of a romantic couple at times, gay or straight, and even though they sleep in two seperate beds they still display a certain amount of closeness that, honest to goodness, could be taken certain ways. If the creators had actually decided to make the couple homosexual, if they had gone and told everyone that they, indeed, were in a relationship with each other... they'd hardly have to change a thing!
But the truth is: They're not. Bert and Ernie are good, longtime friends with respect and love for each other and that's all. While this disappoints some members of the LGBT who are always on the lookout for respectable gay/alternative role models for kids to observe, this is how it should be. Bert and Ernie are based on the friendship of Frank Oz and Jim Henson. To take that friendship and alter it like that would be wrong, flat out.
Would their relationship of been a good precedence for homosexual couples that children could take away from? I believe so. But as our world continues to become more and more progressive, we'll still have opportunities on the horizon to properly educate our kids on acceptance of those with different orientations. As long as we keep pushing and working for it!
To those who were offended by the idea of Bert and Ernie being in a homosexual relationship because you felt like it would "sexualize" them, I have a question for you: Were you ever offended by the relationship of Miss Piggy and Kermit? They were obviously involved in a romantic relationship and even married. Why would it be any more or less offensive for Bert and Ernie to take a step up in their relationship from roomates to a couple?
Just food for thought.
(Observation of Kermit and Piggy originally brought to light for me by Armistead Maupin. Thank you for that!)
However, there are two characters that I do remember rather finely, and those are Bert and Ernie. An odd couple living together and, as odd couples tend to do on television, go through many cycles of frustration and hilarity with each other, often the high strung Ernie finding a certain issue with Bert's lackadaisical behavior. The two were friends, though, close and strong.
Over time, though, there were certain people, as they grew from children to worldly adults, that started to get some ideas. Not necessarily bad ideas, mind you, but notions would develop that these two were more than just an odd couple: They were *a* couple. That Bert and Ernie, for all intents and purposes, were romantically involved as homosexual partners.
This is somewhat understandable. They exhibit many qualities of a romantic couple at times, gay or straight, and even though they sleep in two seperate beds they still display a certain amount of closeness that, honest to goodness, could be taken certain ways. If the creators had actually decided to make the couple homosexual, if they had gone and told everyone that they, indeed, were in a relationship with each other... they'd hardly have to change a thing!
But the truth is: They're not. Bert and Ernie are good, longtime friends with respect and love for each other and that's all. While this disappoints some members of the LGBT who are always on the lookout for respectable gay/alternative role models for kids to observe, this is how it should be. Bert and Ernie are based on the friendship of Frank Oz and Jim Henson. To take that friendship and alter it like that would be wrong, flat out.
Would their relationship of been a good precedence for homosexual couples that children could take away from? I believe so. But as our world continues to become more and more progressive, we'll still have opportunities on the horizon to properly educate our kids on acceptance of those with different orientations. As long as we keep pushing and working for it!
To those who were offended by the idea of Bert and Ernie being in a homosexual relationship because you felt like it would "sexualize" them, I have a question for you: Were you ever offended by the relationship of Miss Piggy and Kermit? They were obviously involved in a romantic relationship and even married. Why would it be any more or less offensive for Bert and Ernie to take a step up in their relationship from roomates to a couple?
Just food for thought.
(Observation of Kermit and Piggy originally brought to light for me by Armistead Maupin. Thank you for that!)
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
So, I thought I'd just drop in with a little something to kind of make this all a little more personal.
I'm a social liberal... for the most part. I believe in pro-choice, I support the right for homosexuals to marry, I don't want religion to have any part in government, and I'm for a certain amount of gun control.
I somewhat support legal marijuana, but only to the extent where responsible, educated individuals can enjoy it and believe there should be severe repercussions for those who can't be responsible. No, I do not partake, nor do I wish to.
As far as immigration goes, I personal prefer tighter standards, though I believe that any child born and raised to adulthood in this country should qualify for citizenship.
I'm a mixed bag on the death penalty. While I understand that keeping these people alive is a drain on our economy, I also don't approve of unnecessary death. Killing in self defense is acceptable, to me. Killing a prisoner... It's just difficult to justify. It's not because of sympathy, either. It's just a moral qualm. Don't get me wrong, though, I understand that there are some people who are beyond redemption and... well, perhaps it's better for all of us if they no longer waste our resources.
I flat out support embryonic stem cell research.
Euthanasia & Physician-assisted suicide... That's a rough one, because I believe that people should have the right do with their lives as they wish. Ending it should be one of those rights. However... there are some people who make hasty decisions when depressed, in pain, and so very sick. I also worry about coercion from any side.
Health care is an issue I don't think I'm qualified to express my opinion on, to an extent. I do support it, in theory, but I don't think people should be forced to opt into it. Also, we could be using our tax money on... a billion other things.
Oh, and taxes! Raise'em. Cut the Bush tax cuts for the rich. This shit is ridiculous.
Climate? Global warming? Uh, well, see... um... 'bout that... *Has not done nearly enough research! LEAVE HIM ALONE!*
I believe that covers most of the topics I actually feel one way or the other about. If there's anything else, just ask. I'm very open for discussion!
I'm a social liberal... for the most part. I believe in pro-choice, I support the right for homosexuals to marry, I don't want religion to have any part in government, and I'm for a certain amount of gun control.
I somewhat support legal marijuana, but only to the extent where responsible, educated individuals can enjoy it and believe there should be severe repercussions for those who can't be responsible. No, I do not partake, nor do I wish to.
As far as immigration goes, I personal prefer tighter standards, though I believe that any child born and raised to adulthood in this country should qualify for citizenship.
I'm a mixed bag on the death penalty. While I understand that keeping these people alive is a drain on our economy, I also don't approve of unnecessary death. Killing in self defense is acceptable, to me. Killing a prisoner... It's just difficult to justify. It's not because of sympathy, either. It's just a moral qualm. Don't get me wrong, though, I understand that there are some people who are beyond redemption and... well, perhaps it's better for all of us if they no longer waste our resources.
I flat out support embryonic stem cell research.
Euthanasia & Physician-assisted suicide... That's a rough one, because I believe that people should have the right do with their lives as they wish. Ending it should be one of those rights. However... there are some people who make hasty decisions when depressed, in pain, and so very sick. I also worry about coercion from any side.
Health care is an issue I don't think I'm qualified to express my opinion on, to an extent. I do support it, in theory, but I don't think people should be forced to opt into it. Also, we could be using our tax money on... a billion other things.
Oh, and taxes! Raise'em. Cut the Bush tax cuts for the rich. This shit is ridiculous.
Climate? Global warming? Uh, well, see... um... 'bout that... *Has not done nearly enough research! LEAVE HIM ALONE!*
I believe that covers most of the topics I actually feel one way or the other about. If there's anything else, just ask. I'm very open for discussion!
Friday, February 18, 2011
Watchmen VS. Watchmen (P.2)
Watchmen Review Part 2
As a last touch on the issue of violence, a scene in particular comes to mind. When Rorschach, in prison, has a fellow inmates arms strapped behind bars, another inmate decides to go at them... with a power saw. This scene is played in full, with blood sprayed everywhere.
It isn't artistic. It isn't moving or shocking. It's schlocky, hokey, and tasteless.
It's not just the violence and gratuitous slow-mo that holds this movie back from being an accurate adaptation. One must also account for the exploitative nudity and sexual content.
It's easy to appreciate that this movie is adult. However, the sex scene between Laurie and Daniel is just over-the-top. It's over-glorifying the sensuality to the point of lewdness, where it's supposed to be the moment where Daniel finds himself sexually, overcoming his impotence that stems from his psychological connections to vigilantism; his inability to function outside his suit.
Dr. Manhattan suffers as well. While it's appreciated that they do not shy away from his nudity and what that symbolizes, his penis is -huge-. It's pronounced and almost emphasized at points, while in the comic, it was subtle and tasteful, like a Grecian statue. Perhaps they were just afraid that if it were smaller, people would just mock the character?
My final grievance against the movie pertains to a certain scene that's missing at the very end. After Ozymandias has essentially won, he asks, "I did the right thing, didn't I? It all worked out in the end." Plainly yet cryptically, Dr. Manhattan responds with, "'In the end?' Nothing ends, Adrian. Nothing ever ends." This line is basically thrown away by Laurie to her -mother-. A line that was very specifically meant for Ozymandias, something to shake his whole foundation; the foundation of the story itself.
There are lesser complaints, from the music choices, the shaky acting, and certain changes in scenes here and there, but what I've laid out is my basic issue with Watchmen. As a film, it struggles because it's message is incredibly hurt. As an adaptation, it's a case of so close, yet so very, very far.
As a last touch on the issue of violence, a scene in particular comes to mind. When Rorschach, in prison, has a fellow inmates arms strapped behind bars, another inmate decides to go at them... with a power saw. This scene is played in full, with blood sprayed everywhere.
It isn't artistic. It isn't moving or shocking. It's schlocky, hokey, and tasteless.
It's not just the violence and gratuitous slow-mo that holds this movie back from being an accurate adaptation. One must also account for the exploitative nudity and sexual content.
It's easy to appreciate that this movie is adult. However, the sex scene between Laurie and Daniel is just over-the-top. It's over-glorifying the sensuality to the point of lewdness, where it's supposed to be the moment where Daniel finds himself sexually, overcoming his impotence that stems from his psychological connections to vigilantism; his inability to function outside his suit.
Dr. Manhattan suffers as well. While it's appreciated that they do not shy away from his nudity and what that symbolizes, his penis is -huge-. It's pronounced and almost emphasized at points, while in the comic, it was subtle and tasteful, like a Grecian statue. Perhaps they were just afraid that if it were smaller, people would just mock the character?
My final grievance against the movie pertains to a certain scene that's missing at the very end. After Ozymandias has essentially won, he asks, "I did the right thing, didn't I? It all worked out in the end." Plainly yet cryptically, Dr. Manhattan responds with, "'In the end?' Nothing ends, Adrian. Nothing ever ends." This line is basically thrown away by Laurie to her -mother-. A line that was very specifically meant for Ozymandias, something to shake his whole foundation; the foundation of the story itself.
There are lesser complaints, from the music choices, the shaky acting, and certain changes in scenes here and there, but what I've laid out is my basic issue with Watchmen. As a film, it struggles because it's message is incredibly hurt. As an adaptation, it's a case of so close, yet so very, very far.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Watchmen VS. Watchmen
Watchmen Review Part 1
The original Watchmen is a graphic novel written by Alan Moore and drawn by Dave Gibbons. The 1986 comic book series was a dissection of the super-hero concept; a realistic, stark, psychological study of famous characters, themes, and archetypes.
The film adaptation of Watchmen, directed by Zack Snyder with screenplay credit to Alex Tse and David Hayter, is a misguided cash-in that deviates from the entire point of the 12-part graphic novel and decides that style over substance is the only way to get ahead in Hollywood, even when it sacrifices the very fundamentals of what made the source material compelling to begin with.
Let me start off by saying that I really do want to judge Watchmen the film on it's on credits. I should state, though, that I do have an unavoidable bias towards an intellectual property's original medium. I will always compare and contrast, no matter what. In this review, in fact, you will hear plenty of comparisons.
However, I am only keen to compare and contrast what's truly important; the very rudimentary values that were established in the books that should not have been changed. Honestly, I'm hardly even bothered by the change in the ending. They very well could have made a giant monster and called it an alien, but using Dr. Manhattan as a scapegoat serves it's purpose just as well.
No, what bothers me is that the film seems to ignore most of the entire purpose behind Watchmen, which was to portray the various social, psychological, and moral impacts of vigilantism, along with the struggle of a super-human to relate to the people around him.
First, let's address the issue of violence in film. Watchmen, the graphic novel, is in no way gentle. The content within it is meant to shock you with it's depictions of violence; to arrest you with the reality of these character's actions. The film, however, seems intent on entertaining you with it's violence; lingering shots of blood and gore becoming glorifying and exploitative, not damning and tragic.
My first example would be the fight in the alleyway. Laurie and Daniel are caught in a fight with a gang. In the comic, it's somewhat violent, but it's two trained fighters basically taking down a bunch of thugs in self defense. In the movie, it's over-kill to a degree that's not only over-the-top, but totally against character. These guys are not supposed to be killers, especially Daniel. He should be the first guy trying not to murder these punks, yet in the movie, they both leave at least a couple of them dead and dying on the pavement.
Furthermore, the action is here is totally over-choreographed, which itself becomes a dire issue with this movie. It breaks the realism and turns a couple of real-to-life characters into something out of a kung-fu flick. It goes against the entire point of the story and themes. It feels utterly pointless, as well.
Speaking of utterly pointless action scenes in this movie, how about the prison-break? I once saw a reviewer tell me it was one of the best additions to the movie. I felt like it was drawn out, over-the-top, and packed to the gills with over-used slow-mo and needless acrobatics. These are SUPPOSED to be real people, but again, this plays out more like a stereotypical comic-book.
There's a certain amount of irony there.
Part 2 to follow!
The original Watchmen is a graphic novel written by Alan Moore and drawn by Dave Gibbons. The 1986 comic book series was a dissection of the super-hero concept; a realistic, stark, psychological study of famous characters, themes, and archetypes.
The film adaptation of Watchmen, directed by Zack Snyder with screenplay credit to Alex Tse and David Hayter, is a misguided cash-in that deviates from the entire point of the 12-part graphic novel and decides that style over substance is the only way to get ahead in Hollywood, even when it sacrifices the very fundamentals of what made the source material compelling to begin with.
Let me start off by saying that I really do want to judge Watchmen the film on it's on credits. I should state, though, that I do have an unavoidable bias towards an intellectual property's original medium. I will always compare and contrast, no matter what. In this review, in fact, you will hear plenty of comparisons.
However, I am only keen to compare and contrast what's truly important; the very rudimentary values that were established in the books that should not have been changed. Honestly, I'm hardly even bothered by the change in the ending. They very well could have made a giant monster and called it an alien, but using Dr. Manhattan as a scapegoat serves it's purpose just as well.
No, what bothers me is that the film seems to ignore most of the entire purpose behind Watchmen, which was to portray the various social, psychological, and moral impacts of vigilantism, along with the struggle of a super-human to relate to the people around him.
First, let's address the issue of violence in film. Watchmen, the graphic novel, is in no way gentle. The content within it is meant to shock you with it's depictions of violence; to arrest you with the reality of these character's actions. The film, however, seems intent on entertaining you with it's violence; lingering shots of blood and gore becoming glorifying and exploitative, not damning and tragic.
My first example would be the fight in the alleyway. Laurie and Daniel are caught in a fight with a gang. In the comic, it's somewhat violent, but it's two trained fighters basically taking down a bunch of thugs in self defense. In the movie, it's over-kill to a degree that's not only over-the-top, but totally against character. These guys are not supposed to be killers, especially Daniel. He should be the first guy trying not to murder these punks, yet in the movie, they both leave at least a couple of them dead and dying on the pavement.
Furthermore, the action is here is totally over-choreographed, which itself becomes a dire issue with this movie. It breaks the realism and turns a couple of real-to-life characters into something out of a kung-fu flick. It goes against the entire point of the story and themes. It feels utterly pointless, as well.
Speaking of utterly pointless action scenes in this movie, how about the prison-break? I once saw a reviewer tell me it was one of the best additions to the movie. I felt like it was drawn out, over-the-top, and packed to the gills with over-used slow-mo and needless acrobatics. These are SUPPOSED to be real people, but again, this plays out more like a stereotypical comic-book.
There's a certain amount of irony there.
Part 2 to follow!
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Hey folks.
This is basically a blog where I'll be posting things not necessarily related to abridging. This blog will deal with other projects I want to work on, opinions I have on current events and standing social issues, reviews of media I enjoy, and miscellaneous bits of my life.
First off? Wow. A whole fucking revolution going on in Egypt. Don't see that every day. Or year. Or decade. Seriously, did you see the pool? They flipped the bitch!
First off? Wow. A whole fucking revolution going on in Egypt. Don't see that every day. Or year. Or decade. Seriously, did you see the pool? They flipped the bitch!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)