Comic Book Resources

My only complaint about any of these is the blatantly CGI Bubastis on the Ozymandias poster.

I think they're ugly

Sigh. Butt-shot on the woman and the words "stupid". Sigh.

Well they tried to get the genetically engineered Bubastis ready in time for the photo shoot but...

I love the posters, I love the trailers...

I really, really hope it's not just a case of style over substance... Which it may well be...

And as for the crotch shot of Rorshach!?!? eeew!

Why are they spoiling who the villain is?!

Maybe it's only blatant if you've read the book, but come on - that's an "I'm a self-righteous villain" line if I ever saw one!

At first I shivered at the sole thought of a Watchmen movie in the making, but after watching the trailers and these posters... well, they got me pretty excited. Of course, the best we can hope is that it will be a good movie, but nowhere near the carefully hand-crafted perfection of the COMIC BOOK (I loathe the term "graphic novel"). However, as a fanboy at least I will get a new perspective (hopefully, as faithful as it can be) of one of the best things I have ever read (together with Maus and Ficciones, a Jorge Luis Borges anthology of short stories). It will never hurt MY idea of Watchmen, so why not?

Touché Ariel! I suppose I should use the same reasoning I had towards the Movie adaptation of Lord of the Rings... As long as it gets the right idea across, I won't mind too much, and if it turns out like League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, then I still have my Absolute Watchmen to fall back on...

Anthony: I think it only seems spoilerish if you already know the story. Just looking at the posters, Rorschach really seems more villainous than Ozzy.

Didn't notice Bubastis the first time around. He looks more like it belongs in Polar Express than The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. I hope there's some better post-production work on her. And yes, I can't remember Bubastis' gender.

OTOH, I think it's more egregious that Night Owl isn't pudgier. I know the suit can hide a lot, but it looks like they went with a model out of J Crew rather than a professor out of community college.

Wow, looks terrible. Par for the course on this one, though.

I really super love The Comedian's poster.

Ozymandias looks like a second-string villain from Batman and Robin.

Why is Rorschach holding a weirdass space-gun?

You's a fine lookin' woman, won't you back that ass up?

Nightowl looks appropriately silly.

And there's nothing terribly special to say about Doctor Manhattan's poster.

Not a big fan of the posters. They look a little cheap, which is disappointing. Also -- each of these characters have far cooler, more poster ready quotes. Rorschach's is fine, as is Nite Owl's...but Silk Spectre's? Manhattan's? They just come off weak, at least to me.

I'm psyched for the movie, but these are lame. With the exception of the trailers (and the Ozzy commercial contest), I haven't been that excited about the marketing for this. Compared to TDK, it's weak. That's a high bar -- but this is Watchmen.

Still...

They're not spoiling who the villain is. Please. Anyone coming at this cold will be more apt to think Rorschach's the villain -- or, for that matter, Manhattan. Ozzie actually has one of the less ominous quotes.

And that's definitely Rorschach's grappling hook gun.

And -- if anyone's seen footage of Dreiberg outside his suit, he looks appropriately pudgy. The suit's pretty constricting and molded, which is fine with me. I like the idea of him being really different while in the suit, and I think that's thematically consistent with the book.

I DREAD this movie.

Why is Rorschach holding a weirdass space-gun?

i think that's supposed to be his grappler gun.

The posters are kinda like what I think I remember seeing for Sin City, 300 and The Spirit, except they're a lot more colorful than any of those. I like them though. I think if I were in a subway station or bus stop, that these might grab my attention a little quicker than the ones replicating Gibbons' posters. I might prefer the Gibbons' styled posters when it came down to which ones I wanted hanging on my walls though.

Wow, this looks like its pretty loyal to the source material rather than being ashamed of it like the Dark Knight was. I can't wait.

Sigh. Butt-shot on the woman and the words “stupid”. Sigh.

Wait, so the word "stupid" appearing anywhere near an image of a woman equals misogyny? Come on now, people are way too sensitive about feminist issues on this site sometimes.

Oh, come ON, T, that picture with Silk Spectre looks like an advert for VD testing, at best.

Fetish outfit + double-meaning quote = using sex to sell.

Now, I think that's somewhat appropriate for the character, but I don't think you can deny that sex appeal is part of what the people who made the poster were going for.

So, do they call her the Latex Spectre? And hooboy, those are some unfortunate bat-nipples Ozy’s got there. Rorschach, on the other hand, is so badass that he stole the Joker’s pants.

Ugh.

Fetish outfit + double-meaning quote = using sex to sell.

The movie makers did not give her the sexy outfit, Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons did. And what's wrong with using sex to sell? If men could use sheer sex appeal to sell to straight women most of us would be using sex to sell every chance we got. Women use sex to sell themselves all the time. The only women who really complain about objectification of women are the ugly feminists who can't use sexuality to sell themselves.

Now, I think that’s somewhat appropriate for the character, but I don’t think you can deny that sex appeal is part of what the people who made the poster were going for.

If it's appropriate for the character, why is it so bad. And yes I don't deny sex appeal is part of what the poster is going for. What I don't get is why that;s automatically a bad thing.

Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons gave her a sexy outfit, T., but not the one shown above. That one's the movie clowns', um, inspiration.

"The only women who really complain about objectification of women are the ugly feminists who can’t use sexuality to sell themselves."

Oh, come now, T. There are plenty of attractive feminists out there.

T.: Just noticing the "usual" marketing strategies that seem kind of unnecessary. It's just so damn obvious and except for Rory's groin shot is tiresomely typical.

"The only women who really complain about objectification of women are the ugly feminists who can’t use sexuality to sell themselves."

Are you KIDDING ME?!? This is a thought that actually resides in your head? What the fuck! Yes, women use this; as a society we've just about forced them if they want to do anything other than just sit there. Jesus Christ. God. Using sex to sell can even be an OK thing, in theory . . .but for frickin' Watchmen of all things? Not exactly a sexy work. Anyway, the point is it's fucking disgusting someone in this day and age can still be living in a headspace where the above thought is fine and dandy.

Wow, T., that was about the most classless thing I've heard anyone say in a long time. Even more classless than the posters up there.

The captions all look like the faux-noir of Sin City, which is again, entirely inappropriate for the subject matter.

I don't see the problem with the Silk Spectre poster... Sure the outfit has been modified for the movie, but can you imagine if it had been truer to the comic? That would have bene closer to softcore porn! As for the pose, what, you'd prefer a full frontal shot? Or one more like Rorshach's squat?

Some costumes work in comics, but not onscreen. Just see X-Men, Wolverine, Batman, etc...

Did you really want Hugh Jackman in yellow and blue latex with drawn-on whiskers?

In my above post, I didn't say using sex to sell was a bad thing, necessarily. I was pointing out that it's what the poster-makers were going for. Using sex to sell a product does not make one a misogynist- look at any commercial in which men are objectified (e.g. Diet Coke ads from several years ago, in which women all rush to look out their office windows at construction workers drinking the product). Women are objectified waaaay more often than men, of course, but using sex to sell something is fair game (excepting products for which it would be completely inappropriate).

I usually sit out the tiffs that come up on this site, and I usually respect your opinions, T., even if I disagree. "Ugly feminists who can''t use sexuality to sell themselves," however, is a thoroughly revolting, misogynist statement that can not be defended.

Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons gave her a sexy outfit, T., but not the one shown above. That one’s the movie clowns’, um, inspiration.

You've already decided to hate this movie haven't you? How dare these ' movie clowns' not transmogriphy the real sexy costume into existence!

I like how the watchmen logo casts a yellow glow on the left side of the characters, nice detail.

lan Moore and Dave Gibbons gave her a sexy outfit, T., but not the one shown above. That one’s the movie clowns’, um, inspiration.

If anything, I'd say the movie guys actually TONED DOWN her costume from the comic version. It was basically a much more revealing swimsuit with a transparent flimsy yellow robe over it.

I’m psyched for the movie, but these are lame. With the exception of the trailers (and the Ozzy commercial contest), I haven’t been that excited about the marketing for this. Compared to TDK, it’s weak. That’s a high bar — but this is Watchmen.

The only thing I hated more than TDK was the obnoxiously nerdy and overdone viral marketing campaign for it leading up to the movie. I guess as marketing it worked but saying this is nothing like TDK in marketing or execution is a good thing to me.

I like how the watchmen logo casts a yellow glow on the left side of the characters, nice detail.

Good catch.

You’ve already decided to hate this movie haven’t you? How dare these ‘ movie clowns’ not transmogriphy the real sexy costume into existence!

Ha. No, I haven't. But that doesn't mean I have to turn my brain off and withhold judgment on what they've already put out there. These do not look promising.

These are fugly. The dayglo coloring really doesn't work for me.

It's that tired thing: "Biff! Bam! Pow! It's a comic book!"

T seems to try really hard to be the best possible stereotype he can be.

T seems to try really hard to be the best possible stereotype he can be.

Funny, I was thinking the same thoughts about the chronically-offended crowd around here...

J to the AAP opined: "I like how the watchmen logo casts a yellow glow on the left side of the characters, nice detail."

Ditto. And noticed the extra touch on Dr. Manhattan's poster — where his "skin" is exposed, HE casts a blue glow on the logo. Sweet.

Given all the attention to detail going into this film, I continue to classify myself as "cautiously optimistic" about the end result we'll be seeing in just four months.

Yeah, Lord knows I'm "chronically offended." I'm one of the worst jerks I've ever known. I make games out of saying awful things.

But that up there?

You meant that.

And that's sad.

These are fugly. The dayglo coloring really doesn’t work for me.

Same secondary colour palette as the comic book actually.

Yeah, Lord knows I’m “chronically offended.” I’m one of the worst jerks I’ve ever known. I make games out of saying awful things.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

But that up there?

You meant that.

And that’s sad.

Sad or not, it's true. Go out to a club filled with hot women or just surf myspace and look at the pictures hot women put up of themselves...both cases are images women choose for themselves....hot women objectify themselves ALL THE TIME. Read a woman's magazine like Cosmo and the articles are not about how to impress men with scintillating wit and what a well-read woman you are, it's all about how to be sexy and use sex appeal and subtle manipulation to get what you want as a woman. You really think women don't use their sex appeal to their advantage when they can? It's a part of life since the beginning of time. It's just human nature and a part of life. Their ability to turn men into quivering goo just by being hot and even parlay that hotness into fame and wealth is not evidence of their victimization, its their greatest weapon. Wars have been raged over the hotness of women. In the 60s, ugly feminists started selling this "objectification" thing, and in universities where they joined the academia started trying to indoctrinate a new generation of women, including hot ones, into buying into this victim myth. They also got "nice guys" who want to appear sensitive and sympathetic in order to get laid to buy into this too.

For all this talk of objectification, I guarantee you if Mephisto offered the women of earth a Mephisto Brand New Day deal where in a flash men stopped being so visually-oriented and the rules of lowered objectification and sex appeal that applies to men also started applying to women, meaning batting eyelashes and flashing a little flesh pretty much got them nothing anymore, women of the world would resoundingly reject such a deal.

Same secondary colour palette as the comic book actually.

No, based on Dark Knight logic, making it actually look and feel like the comic is somehow trivializing the source material. Yet I'm sure if they made this into "realistic" pretentious, dark torture porn like The Dark Knight, it would be considered to be more loyal to the source material.

The Comedian looks okay. The rest look shitty.

When's the last time that many have you read Watchmen? Don't you remember anything about the Silk Spectre character?

Her mother (the original SS) was in the costumed crime fighting biz strictly for the publicity. Her husband marketed her character so that she was more of a money making product then a costumed hero. The whole "sex sells" was the main point to her character.

And her daughter was pushed into following her mom's footsteps. Wearing a similar sexual get-up. She was only around 16 when she began, so wearing the revealing outfit wasn't that big a deal. She was still a kid. It wasn't until she began growing up that she realized the whole Silk Spectre schtick was an embarrassment. So her quote refers to going out at outrageous times at night and beating up a mugger or similar (see the victim lying on the street on the poster).

I agree with most, that I'm tired too with the Sin City/ The Spirit quotes on the posters. But we shouldn't be surprised. I'm sure the Marketing Department thought "Well, those other "Comic Book" movies did it, so we should too."

And for the poster who said that they're "DREADING this movie".... um, why?
Why would anyone, who's not involved with the project, dread a movie?

You don't have to see a movie.

You can dread things like a doctor's appointment or a project at work, but a leisure entertainment like a movie?
Geez man, get a grip.

When’s the last time that many have you read Watchmen? Don’t you remember anything about the Silk Spectre character?

Her mother (the original SS) was in the costumed crime fighting biz strictly for the publicity. Her husband marketed her character so that she was more of a money making product then a costumed hero. The whole “sex sells” was the main point to her character.

Exactly, and wasn't the fact that her mom was a stage parent who objectified her with a jailbait sexpot superhero image a major part of the character? And wasn't her modern feminist adult persona a rebellion against that? Yet she still worse that provocative outfit? The contradictions of growing up exploiting sex appeal yet wanting to be a modern feminist as an adult are part of what makes the character so intriguing.

T., I usually respect your opinion even if I find it completely wrong-headed. But what you're spouting here is absolute nonsense. This is not how things "have always been." Yes, they have been this way for a VERY long time. But the pre-existence of a condition does not justify it. The pre-existence of slavery, which has a history nearly as long as the human race, does not justify it. The pre-existence of theft or murder, likewise.

Sexual and gender oppression is a serious issue; and we HAVE made great strides. And, honestly, this poster isn't even close to the worst representation of this. But to say that the transformation of a gender of people to a sex object is a continuingly appalling And this frankly idiotic notion that "ugly feminists" and some sort of "nice guy"s they've "fooled" are the only people saying this is borderline-retarded.

So you know what? Fuck off for good, you goddam idiot misogynist. Go hang out at FHM or some bullshit more akin to your ability to understand gender relations.

I like how you completely miss the point. Never have I or would I claim that women don't use this. Some even enjoy it or prefer it that way. But the fact that some have learned to manipulate this system doesn't make it a good one.

More on the topic, the Silk Spectre poster isn't any better or worse than the others. They all look pretty lame. It was not the objectification of the character that bothered me. It was the moronic remarks made by T.

Sexual and gender oppression is a serious issue; and we HAVE made great strides.

"Objectification" is not "gender oppression," it's simply playing to your strengths. Men don't get objectified as much in mainstream circles because straight women and straight men aren't really eager to see very sexualized men. Being a hot straight man doesn't go as far as being a hot straight woman does. If straight women were as visually oriented as men, men would be objectified just as much, both by the media and by themselves. It's not an issue of oppression or exploitation, straight women are more objectified than straight men simply because thanks to the interests of their respective target audiences, the sexualizing tactic works 100 times better for the women. But if you look at anything marketed toward gay men, who are as visually oriented as their straight counterparts, you'll see objectification of men as bad as any objectification of females you see in the mainstream media.

Men, whether straight or gay, like visuals. If you are a woman trying to succeed with an audience of straight men or a gay guy trying to succeed with an audience of gay men, focusing on your looks and sex appeal is a smart social strategy. Hot women do not mind being objectified within reason. If not, you'd find just as much hot women applying to be on Jeopardy as on America's New Top Model. I don't know why my views make you fly off the handle with the cursing and personal insults, I think although they may not be flattering or PC there is a certain amount of sense to them.

Anyway, I think the battle between the two Silk Spectres over whether or not to use sex to sell or be a modern enlightened feminist make the poster not that far out of line with the content of the graphic novel.

I can't believe that T. was ever allowed a column on this site. I bitched about it when his article appeared however many months ago that was, and of course my post was altered and my complaints deleted. It appears that he'd actually been playing nice, as offensive as many of his past posts have been, but now his true prejudices are coming out. It ain't pretty and it's a disgrace to this blog.

T., your comments come across as pretty damn ignorant. You don't know why Joe's "flying off the handle", really? It's because what you're saying is provocative. It's offensive. And, just as it happens, it's totally wrong.

'“Objectification” is not “gender oppression,” it’s simply playing to your strengths.'

Wrong.

Also, the attempt to shelter reprehensible views by saying they're not "PC" is getting to be a fairly threadbare strategy. Who cares if you think it's "not PC"? What difference does that make? What kind of points do you think that entitles your asinine contention to score off anyone?

None, and none.

Wow, I honestly didn't think it was that offensive a concept.

Who cares if you think it’s “not PC”? What difference does that make?

I was just responding to the notion that the movie poster above was misogynist just for being sexual. Anyway, I'll leave the topic alone, it seems to have been more incendiary than I expected.

No, objectification is the classic gold standard of absolutely impermissible ethical behavior. Sexism and racism are simply names given to particular types of objectification. Any point at which you have treated a person like a thing instead of a human being, you are denigrating that person's humanity and behaving shamefully.

Slavery is repugnant to the modern psyche because it revolved around the notion that it is totally permissible to treat certain persons-- usually very poor and weak persons-- as if they were objects to be bought and sold. If you are seriously arguing a woman's social stature should be dictated purely by the aesthetics of her physical appearance (which is expensive to maintain and inevitably degenerates as she ages), then you are engaging in completely morally bankrupt thinking. That others are also morally bankrupt does not make you somehow nobler for admitting to your own immorality. You are simply proving that you have the ability to rationalize injustice, and that's nothing to take pride in.

Also, fun fact: aesthetics are cultural. The Greeks and Romans, for instance, felt the male body was the paragon of natural beauty and so fetishized it in their national culture. Naked men and phallic images adorned the streets, people worshiped the phallus, and women were encouraged to cover their inferior bodies up. I'm sure most ancient Greeks would have felt their preferences were "natural" and "just the way people are", because actually thinking about the sources of cultural biases can make it terrifyingly clear how much of "natural preference" is just mimicking what you've seen others do before.

Women like visuals, that's why Playgirl and similar rags have been in publication for twenty-five years (since the feminist movement made them possible on a basic level). It's just that men are socialized to be uncomfortable with male sexuality, since (especially male) homosexuality is still a taboo in most regions. So, images of male sexuality are kept out of mainstream media where men (or similarly socialized women) might see them and find them upsetting. That sort of imagery still runs rampant in alternative media and, in fact, the material is quite lucrative to people who know how to market toward women through alternative channels.

Bookstores in particular are female smut-havens these days, between increasingly graphic romance novels, more hardcore lines of erotica for women hitting, and the rather telling yaoi boom in manga publishing. Yaoi anime have had a much harder time getting traction, because it's harder to sell the anime DVDs directly to women without having to advertise them on sites with significant male viewership.

To get this all roughly back on-topic, I find the Silk Specter's costume and pose appropriate if disappointingly stereotypical. Silk Spectre is a character all bound up in notions of sex and female power, so it's not inappropriate to express sexuality in a poster promoting her. It is disappointing they used such a classically trite and silly T&A pose to do so, but perhaps expecting creativity in promoting an adaptation is a bit much.

I have to say, I dislike the new costume the more I see it, though. Not because it's sexist or anything, but mostly because it's a fantastically unappealing combination of colors, textures, and design lines. While the original Gibbons costume was far too risque for mainstream film, I have to believe they could've come up with something better than this if they'd tried a little harder... but then you're back to "expecting creativity in promoting an adaptation".

The other costumes work better, but there are more different "templates" for male superhero costumes in movies to draw from in creating them. I expect the movie to be fantastic spectacle that will probably mangle the story a bit. The only question is how much mangling, what sort, and where, really.

Women like visuals, that’s why Playgirl and similar rags have been in publication for twenty-five years (since the feminist movement made them possible on a basic level).

i thought Playgirl's REAL (secret?) audience was gay men... do women REALLY buy that mag in significant numbers? (i really do want to know, by the way)

ny point at which you have treated a person like a thing instead of a human being, you are denigrating that person’s humanity and behaving shamefully.

What about CONSENT? Are we taking away from women the right to consent to be judged and appreciated for their beauty and sexuality? If a woman chooses to take a role, to dress provocatively, to model for an advertisement, are we seriously going to treat her like a child that can't make her own choices about her sexuality? I think that is more condescending to women than anything I'VE put forth. if it's some unwilling objectification that's different. if a woman is trying to give a political speech or make it as a mathemitician and I'm commenting on her jugs, that's pretty inexcusable objectification. If a beautiful woman goes into the modeling or Hollywood acting industries, she knows fully well what it's about and most likely doesn't mind being sexually appreciated or looked at lustily. She walks in with both eyes open. This is different than racism or slavery, which has no advantages to their victims and which few people would volunteer for.

I’m sure most ancient Greeks would have felt their preferences were “natural” and “just the way people are”, because actually thinking about the sources of cultural biases can make it terrifyingly clear how much of “natural preference” is just mimicking what you’ve seen others do before.

But didn't these same Greeks think the love between a man and a boy was the highest type of love? I'm sure homoeroticism played a role there to a degree.

Bookstores in particular are female smut-havens these days, between increasingly graphic romance novels, more hardcore lines of erotica for women hitting, and the rather telling yaoi boom in manga publishing.

yes, but the romance novels don't rely on the visuals, they're about the words and narrative. There is a reason why female porn tends to fail, as shown by this article about the failure of Playgirl:

But back to the original question of why porn for men proliferates while women's consistently flails. I guess the obvious answer is that besides enduring, outdated social constructions, men tend to be more visually oriented when it comes to sexual fantasizing, women a bit more cerebral, and guys, I don't mean for that to sound condescending. (We could go into all the various studies on that notion, but I'll save that for another post.) Women's fantasies, traditionally, come in word form (hello Wifey by Judy Blume!) and sometimes, a more physical aid if ya know what I mean, is needed. I'll tell ya what doesn't get most women off, and that's pictures of gay boy toys that look like they'd rather spend the afternoon bromancing with the dudes in the gym than in bed ravishing you.

Even with the Yaoi porn, which I've never seen, I'm sure it's mostly the narrative and relationships and cerebral aspects than the sheer hookup visuals.

I don't have good circulation demographics for you, nor can I tell you where to find them, but I do have a personal anecdote. Take this as you will.

I used to work at this thrift store where all the employees happened to be female, and as a result, the workplace culture ended up really... uh, image permissive as a result. Among other things, there was a thoroughly racy poster of a nice oiled-up young man hanging on the interior of the bathroom door, and usually a few dog-eared Playgirls laying around the break room.

So at least some actual women a few years ago were reading Playgirl!

To be honest, I've been told by gay male friends I've had in the past that they find Playgirl not at all to their taste, though I can't pretend to be able to explain why. It may just be that the community has its own tastes and prefers materials tailored to that, rather than to the tastes of straight women. To bring this back to comics for a moment, you see a similar gap between the audience for yaoi manga and the much less prevalent bara manga and games. Bara is intended for gay men, yaoi for women, and the two types of material don't look much alike at all in terms of art style.

T.,

Objectification has nothing to do with consent, because nothing you describe requires that a woman choose to let herself be treated like an object. It is a false and ridiculous assumption that every women who ever tries to beautify herself, or even who works as a model or actress, wishes for straight men to view her or treat her as a beautiful object only. No, she may wish to be admired as a beautiful person who probably worked very hard to attain that beauty, and will only have it for a brief period of time before she moves on to other phases of her life. Nothing about her decision is making you or herself or anything treat her as an object, and that society tends to do so does not legitimize that tendency.

What you're saying about romance novels, uh, suggests to me you haven't read one lately. The narratives in most lines are increasingly flimsy and the sex scenes are getting way more hardcore, inspired in part by stuff like the later Anita Blake sex-a-thon books. If your point is just "only women like pornographic words" you still kind of don't have a point, as the average bookstore is loaded with written-word erotica intended for men. It's just stocked in a different section labeled "erotica", while women's stuff is stocked in the euphemistic "romance" section. Frankly I have some older friends who have stopped buying older stuff because it's getting so hardcore.

Now, I didn't know Playgirl had just left print publication and I'm interested in finding this out, but calling this an article is a little disingenuous, T. Try "blog entry at Yahoo's astrology website" of all things, and seeing that "Love + Sex" material is relegated to that server makes my nose wrinkle in distaste.

It is also disingenuous to link this without noting that all print magazines are in trouble right now, and pretty much anything moving under 1 million copies a month (which is a lot of mags about a lot of things) is in danger of having to go online in order to be more profitable. Also that Playgirl hasn't "failed" or stopped publishing its material, its simply moved to an online-only model that you (and your link) inexplicably characterize as failure rather than old media being forced to transform or die in the face of new media.

That said, I think you probably linked it in good faith, so I'll respond to it as such. As it's kind of just an opinion blog post, though, I'm not sure what it's supposed to prove to me. It does prove that other women are capable of holding and expressing conventional opinions that disagree with mine. That one woman says women do not enjoy visuals does not mean no woman anywhere is capable of enjoying visuals, or that her statements on female sexuality are in some way absolute. Some women do and some don't like visuals according to personal preference (and, guess what, I've known men who disliked visual pornography for various reasons, none of which had to do with being gay).

That said, if I came off as if I was saying that all women enjoyed visuals before, I apologize, as I didn't mean to. I simply wanted to state that it's foolish to argue in any absolute terms that women don't enjoy visuals when I know of and interact with several communities that very vocally do love visuals. Even if they are not "most women", their opinions count, because women are individuals. I'm sure most men wouldn't like being told what their preferences were based purely on the majority's tastes, or that would mean nobody here really liked comics.

Regarding the nature of yaoi: one of the more popular yaoi anime DVDs right now is something called Sensitive Pornography, which was officially licensed and released uncensored in the US. It's a series of extremely hardcore vignettes with very little emphasis on relationships whatsoever, as the vignettes are only about ten minutes long. Note that the DVD was hardcore enough that for its Japanese distribution, it was censored. Factor in the fact that quite a few manga yaoi that ship in the US are racy enough to merit shrinkwrap, and I think it's kind of ridiculous to be stating that no woman anywhere enjoy visuals of sexy men. Especially based on your own admitted unfamiliarity with the material!

Getting back to Watchmen and the movie: Dr. Manhattan is already starting to pick up his fair share of admirers within certain communities and is getting shipped with Rorschach. Maybe this is why Moore disowned the movie early on...

at the risk of being labeled ignorant and misogynistic, I can't really see why everyone's going at T. I thought some of his (I'm assuming T's male) comments were quite sound, despite the counter arguements.

Anyway, these posters aren't really doing it for me. Just show me a smiley faced badge with blood on it, and I'm game

So, anyway...
I'm pretty apprehensive about this film, but generally not necessarily for the reasons most have given in relation to these posters.
The Ozymandias costume looks way too "Schumacher Batfilm", but to cite the still image of the CGI Lynx in a background that is tinted all purple as a problem when we haven't seen the thing in motion as it will appear in the movie is just silly.
I don't necessarily think that the changes to Nite Owl's costume were really all that necessary, but on the other hand I can buy that there's a chubby guy under there, with the outfit serving a corset-like purpose.

You could do an attractive, even sexy shot of Silk Spectre without making her stand in that awkward Maxim/all-other-douchebag-lad-mags cover pose. Something like a still from the walking-down-the-stairs-toward-camera bit in the trailer would have been perfectly fine in terms of commercially-mandated eye candy without making one feel bad about looking and making your back feel sore in sympathy just by looking at it.

I actually agree with T. that men are more visually oriented, thus the predominance of female objectification. I disagree completely that anything Lynxara wrote was as condescending as the "ugly feminists" line (or condescending in general), but let's look at the premise T.'s put forth since.

Are women judged by their looks? Yes, mostly. There are all kinds of studies about how better looking women are more likely to be hired, etc. I would say that the same probably holds true for men, but I've only read studies discussing women. Does that mean women use their sexuality in social situations. Some do, certainly. Again, men do as well. Flirting works both ways, even if men and women respond to different aspects of it.

The argument breaks down when T. says "hot women do not mind" being objectified (how would you know?), and then argues that consent is an issue. If one is looking at a beautiful woman and she notices and responds negatively, it is only right to stop looking. Regardless of how she is dressed. Regardless of how flirtatious she is. Yes, T., women have a right to dress and act how they want, and men have a right to appreciate it. That doesn't mean women don't mind it, especially if one crosses any line (and I'm not saying or implying that you would) into unwarranted behavior.

Also, implying "hot women" are (or act) dumb is ridiculous (that's my reading of your Jeopardy! comment). Women don't have to work hard or learn if they look good? That's absurd, and sexist.

I see, T., that you write about people being easily offended and PC. I also notice you leap to the defense of the GOP whenever someone criticizes Republicans. Everyone has their button.

My problem with Laurie & Dan (in both the trailer and the posters) is they look too edgy. They're the closest thing Watchmen has to normal people. I don't know how the filmmakers could get their looks right, but I wish they didn't have the leather look. The Comedian looks great, as he's supposed to look more hardcore than his compatriots.

T.: of course racists and slave-owners throughout history have argued that there are benefits to the victims -- so it's a case of, if you're the one creating/exploiting the systemic injustice, one of the things a racist ideology does for you is to provide you with justification for your own status quo. You might even say, "hell, if I was one, I'd love it!"

Your formulation here is kinda bullshit. Women's right to consent to be "judged and appreciated for their beauty and sexuality"...a very ugly equivocation there, by the way...their right to consent to this...

What right is that, exactly? The right to acquiesce to the inevitable? The right to give up your personal credibility as anything but an apologist for the local normal? The right to play ball?

You're doing it again. Sure, if a beautiful woman goes into acting or modelling, she likes being objectified, right? Only the ugly women who go into acting or modelling don't want to be ogled, clearly. But then why would they, when they're so ugly?

Not as ugly as you trying to defend this, though.

Not as ugly as you trying to defend this, though.

Just because something is ugly doesn't make it untrue. The ugliness or positivity of my statement is irrelevant to their truth value. I don't know why you keep bringing up the "ugliness" of what I say as if that relates in any way to their validity.

"Ozymandias looks like a second-string villain from Batman and Robin."

He actually reminds me of Chris O'Donnel Robin. Now, back to your regularly scheduled diversion from the original post.

It would be just as untrue if it were pretty, T.

I'm going to stick up for T here. He has a solid stance and has argued it well without flying off the handle in defending himself. T, your only downfall is that you're already taking a position that people will inherently disagree with so using some of the strong statements that you did really hurt your ability to convince people that you're not a sexist. In arguing such a divisive idea, you would have been better off toning it down a bit. Saying that it's the "ugly feminists" who are against the objectification of women is an oversimplification and the way you stated it is extremely negative, off-putting, and elitist. Yes, there is absolutely a degree of truth in that statement but it is not absolutely true or a fair assessment of the feminist movement.

The hard thing about where you went with your stance is that there is an immediate reaction to what is perceived as "anti-feminist" statements in today's culture. I think you have a very solid point about how there are two sides to the feminist argument against "objectification." Hardcore feminists argue that objectification is wrong. Period. That's completely ridiculous. Objectification is used regularly in a very healthy fashion, especially the arts. Most specifically in photography and fashion. Creating or observing a beautiful image, especially of women because we all can admit that they are generally the more physically beautiful sex, is not inherently bad. Objectifying a person for a moment does not mean that we will objectify them in the next. I might view a supermodel objectively when I see her beautifully photographed on a billboard, but I'm sure my idea of her would be completely different if she and I were holding a conversation. I understand the argument about how the constant barrage of these images damages the self images of our female youth but saying objectification is bad is an oversimplification.

Like all activists, feminists take their stance to the extreme in hopes that the culture will meet them in the middle. I should say "feminist-activists" because I think that most of us are actually "feminists" these days since the term really comes from the notion of female equality. The more extreme sides of feminism, which is a very negative movement IMO, really have to do with female dominance; a sort of revenge against males for centuries of oppression or a perception of oppression by people of today. I say a "perception" because extreme feminists will tell you that women were oppressed by gender roles when that is really only a half-truth. There's no guarantee that women on the whole felt oppressed by the gender roles that most likely developed as a way for society to run efficiently. That's not to say that gender roles are a good thing (nor are they inherently evil) so much as we need to study their existence from all angles and find a healthy way to change the notion of what a woman is and what a man is. There is middle ground. The problem with the feminist-activist movement is that the participators fail to realize that some of their (mostly unrealized) motives are of the same ilk as their "oppressors." Extremist and sexist.

Am I an anti-feminist? Of course not. I am a firm believer of the feminist movement as it relates to the equality of men and women, as I believe in the equality of all humans across the board. However, I know that my comments above (and more comments, if I chose to write them out further) would lead to some strong emotional response from some people. Unfortunately, political correctness has led to the inability to argue about feminism. You can't easily challenge some of the notions of modern feminist-activism without being called a misogynist.

My sister-in-law, who is a feminist-activist, and I got into a good (productive) argument about the magazine industry and how they feed the notion of women "needing" to look like supermodels. I argued that the magazines weren't inherently evil because, while they were escalating a problem, they were obviously serving a need. Those magazines were initially successful because women bought them, and they still do buy them. She believes that women buy them because of pressure by society. I argued that she was half correct because the other half is that women also buy them because of genetic makeup (no pun intended). The argument ended when my sister-in-law burst into tears and screamed that I just wasn't listening. Now, if I really wanted a slam dunk, I could have pointed out to her that her emotional, crying response was due to her genetic makeup being different than that of a man. It's ok that men and women are different; it doesn't make one sex less worthy than the other, it just makes humankind more interesting. However, I know that if I'd said anything, she would have called me a misogynist because men and women are the same. Period.

Sorry for the long rant but it had to be done.

I should clarify that when I say "a very negative movement" I am referring to modern feminist-activism (the extremists), not feminism in general.

Is it just me or does Ozymandias look disturbingly like Seven Of Nine?

"Is it just me or does Ozymandias look disturbingly like Seven Of Nine?"

EEEEuuuuuwwww!

I really wish you hadn't said that...

That's just ruined both...

An authoritative tone is no substitute for being well-informed, Haggie: and it's quite evident you don't know much about this subject.

Having the ability to compose a sentence does not make me authoritative. Nor does stating a point of view. I welcome dialog on subjects such as this but being dismissive of my remarks without actually citing anything from them doesn't accomplish anything.

So who said I was being dismissive, Haggie? It IS evident that you don't know much about this subject, and you DID strike an authoritative tone despite that lack.

"Hardcore feminists argue that objectification is wrong. Period. That’s completely ridiculous."

Now that's a statement that doesn't invite dialogue, so much as critique: because that's not even Women's Studies, that's Phil 100 right there. "Are other people ends or means: discuss", etc. Apparently you believe it's in your power to settle the issue comprehensively, by saying sometimes they are means but that's okay. Or in other words: it's not really an issue at all.

If you just, y'know...duck it.

Also, your conception of what makes an "extreme" feminist, or a "hardcore" feminist, is (to put it delicately) inutile: if the definition of "feminism" were a zoo, yours would apparently have only two cages in it, one for the horse and one for the zebra.

You're working from a knowledge deficit.

You actually make quite a few other assumptions, both implicit and explicit, which I consider unwarranted. But I won't bother pointing them out, because neither you nor I are getting paid for this, and anyway it doesn't change the upshot, which is: you should get yourself some better information.

That's really all I've got to tell you. Take it as you will.

Wow, what a dense thread to wade through after three days.

Gosh, T., whatever do you mean "people are way too sensitive about feminist issues on this site?"

So have you had sufficient feedback by now to revise your original statement "the only women who really complain about the objectivication of women are the ugly feminists who can't use sexuality to sell themselves?"
Or do you stand by it still?
I'd like to think that maybe you were just being a bit too glib and quickly dismissive and cute, and didn't really stop to think about what you were saying before you said it, and that now on sober second thought you'll retract the statement and apologize to girls and women everywhere.
If not, then I'll deem you firmly as something likely less than neanderthal, since there's considerable evidence that Neanderthals were matriarchal.
I know, I know, they died out. Your point is...?

And Plok, I hope you'll likewise look back and realize just how overbearingly dismissive your initial response to haggie was. I know you're an big Watchmen fan, so I'm figuring that the tone of your sneer at these posters just sort of carried over into your comment.
But your horse/zebra zoo metaphor was good enough to file away for future borrowing, so you get a mulligan on this one.

And about the posters.... I guess what bothers me even more than Laurie's gleaming buttcheek is just the REALITY of seeing these characters all slick and processed and packaged and ready for the cereal boxes and Skytrain stations. No movie can hope to capture the richness and depths of this book, but it's a bummer (sorry Laurie) to see how disappointed I'll inevitably be, even as the relentless fanboy in me looks forward to the sheer wondrous spectacle .

But hey, they say there's no giant telepathic squid in this movie (oops spoilers, sorry, too late) but that New York gets nuked or something instead.

Sigh. Anybody heard anything more definitive?

And eww yes, Seven of Nine, absolutely.
Thanks so much for that.

Didn't mean it to sound overbearing, whoops. Guess it did.

I just always find these "reasonable" defences for unreasonable ideas very provoking: someone might make the mistake of crediting them just because they have a superficially conciliating tone, and that would be a bit of a tragedy.

But I probably should've taken steps to come across less snotty, so that one's on me.

Anyway, I suppose I've said my piece.

(Hey, Fourthworlder, you said "Skytrain"...! But only one place in the world makes portmanteaux that dumb-sounding, surely?)

So have you had sufficient feedback by now to revise your original statement “the only women who really complain about the objectivication of women are the ugly feminists who can’t use sexuality to sell themselves?”

No.

Or do you stand by it still?

I do.

Better to reign in hell, eh T.?

Welp, on to the next trainwreck...

Only one place, Plok? I always thought they have Skytrains in Bangkok and Singapore too.
But I do live in the BEST place with, um, dumb-sounding portmanteaux. Do you too? Have you tried the new mayor's Pomegranate Ice Tea? It's excellent.
And what is a portmanteaux, anyway? Is that like a Seabus?

And let's just dismiss the undesirable T. I pity the fool.

"Seabus"? Is that like a "CareCard"? Whoops, I would talk more, Fourthworlder, but I think then I'd need an AddFare...

And as far as I'm concerned, it's time for new flash-pasteurized blood in City Hall. Heck, it's time for new blood everywhere! I miss voting for old Cowboy Ellis, though...

Let's get together at ABC Books, whaddaya say? Right near my house, now: so I've ended up getting some benefit from the Olympics after all!

The latest Trailer (On Yahoo and Quicktime movies) shows NiteOwl II out of costume looking much more like he did in the comics...

I am concerned about the alleged change to the ending though...

If what we are being teased with in the trailer IS the new ending, then I don't understand how it would actually achieve what Ozy was after in the comics... It would surely just spark off WW III and Armageddon...

I kinda hope it's all a big double-bluff...