PDA

View Full Version : watchmen review - no spoilers



jin choung
03-06-2009, 05:02 PM
howdy everyone,

saw the midnight screening last night.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
tips:
1. niteowl + rorschach = batman. niteowl represents batman's technological and financial means plus his honed martial skills. rorschach represents batman's true dysfunctional psychoses if really aired out without the benefit of the nobler adornments.

2. dr. manhattan = superman. if human beings were to you as termites are to human beings, would you REALLY CARE?

funny that the two revolutionary comics released in the same year in the 80s (watchmen and the dark knight returns) ends up ultimately being a struggle between batman and superman. in dkr, it is about the conflict of ideals that both represent while in the watchmen, it is a conflict of their personality disorders! ha.
------------------------------------------------------------------
general impressions:
1. workmanlike. hits all the marks. forgettable as a piece of cinema.
2. zack snyder did NOT "butcher it".... this is certainly a critique that he dodges entirely. and his decisions to change the ending is not at all disagreeable... it boosts the economy of the story and was a very clean way for him to excise an entire subplot that was essentially unnecessary to convey the story in its true spirit.
3. 2hours 50minutes. you read that right. 10min shy of 3 hours.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
specifics:
1. dr. manhattan is a TERRIBLE cg character. even basic anatomy looks wrong much of the time with the proportions of his torso looking wonky. lip sync is terrible almost uniformly and the tank destruction looks awful... what kind of a tank has SUCH FEW PARTS?! and the voice is irritatingly out of character. too high. too weak. too "unprocessed"! the guy is freakin' radiating blue... don't tell me his vocal chords or precisely unaltered!

2. the impression is that the acting is pretty bad but most of it rightly falls on the director's shoulders i believe. he didn't have the vision to properly convey the right tone or beat or slow someone down or speed someone up when they should have been.

a scene that is staged VERY improperly is when dr. manhattan has is accident. in the comics, it is masterfully developed from a humorous mishap to a growing horror that nothing can be done to stop a tragedy from occurring and then the abandonment of a loved one.

in the movie, it is simply a SYNOPSIS of the action... not a full, emotional rendering of it. sad.

3. the movie in general feels like a SYNOPSIS. it hits all the beats so you get the idea of the story but it feels rushed and certain moments are not allowed to breathe and develop properly. "okay we hit the beat, let's move the f on".... rushed.... cliff's notes version.

emotions are merely alluded too, not felt. feels hollow.

4. perhaps as a result of above, ludicrously melodramatic - literally speakiing.... melos (music) + drama.... the musical cues are BLATANT, OBVIOUS, TOO ON THE NOSE and engineered to make the proceedings clearer to the target audience of severely retarded rhesus monkeys evidently.

- oooo, i see, the soundtrack is a mystical philosophical space music here so this is the philosophical part.

- oooo, i see, the soundtrack is a rockin' techno beat so this is the action part.

- oooo, i see this is the slapstick funny music so i'm supposed to laugh here.

5. makeup effects were uniformly horrible. you could've had ted koppel and other known people be represented by soundalike but non identical dopplegangers.

the use of makeup, especially on nixon made the piece seem almost like the muppets do watchmen.... was it really necessary to make nixon look like cyrano de bergerac?

6. rorschach comes off like much more of a badass in the comics. could've been made cooler in the movie. alas.

but his "batman voice" is leaps and bounds over christian bale's reprehensible voice in the dark knight.

7. ozymandias is made properly badass though. basically untouchable.

8. didn't miss the squid. the problem of the ending is not the change that the lack of the squid represents. rather, the STERILE death represented is completely emotionally void.

yeah, it's bad... in theory... but nothing that is felt by the audience genuinely.

snyder spent much of the movie admirably NOT pulling punches but where he really really really needed to not - he folded. and the movie suffers for it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

worth seeing.

as i said, hits all the marks and gives you a good breakdown of what happens in the comics.

recommended order:

- watch movie.
- read comic to illuminate yourself on what you missed.
- skip all the text in back of comics first time around. you can get bogged down in minutia that you will not care about until later. attempting to be completist here can just stop your progress through the comic dead and make you shelve it unfinished. skip it UNTIL you WANT to read what it's all about.

but EMPTY YOUR BLADDERS OF EVERY LAST DROP AND NO FLUID INTAKE DURING THE MOVIE.... seriously... 3 hours.

luck.

jin

p.s. action and sex scenes errr... "fleshed out".... as it were.... and satisfyingly graphic.

tyrot
03-06-2009, 05:32 PM
dear jin

i have just watched it

i agree with your review almost entirely. Good and objective review..thanks for spending time and writing it.

That nose from nixon ...i just cannot hold myself from laughing:) and i still do not get why doctor manhattan tries to catch ..."the guy" with his hand and misses :)

I also so agree with your points on soundtrack, awful acting moments...etc

rorschach one line was cool "i m not locked here with you, you locked in here with me" it was something like this...I really liked his performance in prison..it was really good to watch overcharged-clint eastwood like character...

Best

Hopper
03-06-2009, 05:32 PM
Our entire dev team rented out a local theater at 11 this morning. Great flick - even if you're not familiar with the storyline.

Definately not for the kiddies.

It gives an entirely different perspective on the term "super hero", that's for sure.

I'd definately see it again. And as Jin said... make sure you make all your bathroom breaks - it's LOTR kind of long.

jin choung
03-06-2009, 05:34 PM
rorschach one line was cool "i m not locked here with you, you locked in here with me" it was something like this...I really liked his performance in prison..it was really good to watch overcharged-clint eastwood like character...


yeah but i felt that the choreography in that scene stepped over his line. it should have been clearer imo.

if you liked rorschach in the movie, the one in the comic is much cooler.

jin

Hopper
03-06-2009, 05:36 PM
yeah but i felt that the choreography in that scene stepped over his line. it should have been clearer imo.

if you liked rorschach in the movie, the one in the comic is much cooler.

jin

Lol .. when he "did that thing to that guy in the chow line " all I could think was "Help me... I'm meeeellllltinnnnngggggg..." ala wicked witch of the west.

jin choung
03-06-2009, 05:43 PM
Lol .. when he "did that thing to that guy in the chow line " all I could think was "Help me... I'm meeeellllltinnnnngggggg..." ala wicked witch of the west.

yeah... again, the action there was a part where snyder did NOT pull his punch and it was satisfyingly graphic.

what happens to the fat guy in the jail though was kind of ludicrous. in the comic, they just slashed his throat which actually feels more violent and disturbing. what happened in the movie ends up playing like parody.

TSpyrison
03-06-2009, 06:49 PM
But most important...
how hot is the chick in the latex outfit?? ;)

IgnusFast
03-06-2009, 06:51 PM
I'd like to know if you guys would fess up some details about what makes this movie "not for kids". Everything I've read says that it's violent and has sex, but no details so I can make an informed opinion.

I only get one shot at this one with my wife, or we'd preview it first before taking our son. :)

jasonwestmas
03-06-2009, 06:53 PM
Man, I don't like to say this about this kind of genre but. . .I haven't seen the film but just based on some previews I really have no desire to see it, it really just looks out and out WONKY.

jin choung
03-06-2009, 07:21 PM
I'd like to know if you guys would fess up some details about what makes this movie "not for kids". Everything I've read says that it's violent and has sex, but no details so I can make an informed opinion.

I only get one shot at this one with my wife, or we'd preview it first before taking our son. :)

exposed breasts, minutes on minutes of grinding ala cinemax, compound fractures with bone protruding from skin, attempted rape, a prostitute mother, a child killer that is psuedo decapitated, a child's remains being eaten by feral dogs, murder of a pregnant woman by a "hero", justifiable mass murder....

what else you need?

would inspire ludicrous kinds of discussions with your child. this is REALLY not for kids.

jin

jin choung
03-06-2009, 07:25 PM
But most important...
how hot is the chick in the latex outfit?? ;)

hot. in the previews when she's walking down the steps and there's daylight between her thighs... man, she had me at "hello"....

but she's hot weird lookin'.... kinda like a porn star. butterface kinda... but not really.

her face is flat and wide and on a good day, you could probably land planes on it. but kinda hot and kinda pretty nonetheless. weird lookin.

jin

Hopper
03-06-2009, 07:38 PM
exposed breasts, minutes on minutes of grinding ala cinemax, compound fractures with bone protruding from skin, attempted rape, a prostitute mother, a child killer that is psuedo decapitated, a child's remains being eaten by feral dogs, murder of a pregnant woman by a "hero", justifiable mass murder....

what else you need?

would inspire ludicrous kinds of discussions with your child. this is REALLY not for kids.

jin
And don't forget Dr. Manhattan's ever present shlong dangling about as he makes his way from scene to scene..


but she's hot weird lookin'.... kinda like a porn star. butterface kinda... but not really.
Yeah, I got that too. She has a particularly odd quality about her. If you're ever in doubt, always picture the chick without her hair ... Would you still tap it? Would you be embarrassed to be seen with her? Does she look more like a drag queen?

zapper1998
03-06-2009, 11:41 PM
wow

now I have to see it...

Tom Wood
03-07-2009, 01:33 AM
8. didn't miss the squid.

Oh, but Hitler misses the squid...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIhHema5PNg

mattclary
03-07-2009, 09:43 AM
Yeah, I got that too. She has a particularly odd quality about her. If you're ever in doubt, always picture the chick without her hair ... Would you still tap it? Would you be embarrassed to be seen with her? Does she look more like a drag queen?


Oh, I would tap it repeatedly. Even bald. :devil:

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&q=%22malin%20ackerman%22&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi

IgnusFast
03-07-2009, 09:56 AM
exposed breasts, minutes on minutes of grinding ala cinemax, compound fractures with bone protruding from skin, attempted rape, a prostitute mother, a child killer that is psuedo decapitated, a child's remains being eaten by feral dogs, murder of a pregnant woman by a "hero", justifiable mass murder....

what else you need?

would inspire ludicrous kinds of discussions with your child. this is REALLY not for kids.

jin

That'll cover it; thanks, Jin! He could actually handle most of that on a limited basis, but it sounds like too much for too long a time. I appreciate the response.

mattclary
03-07-2009, 09:57 AM
How old is he?

IgnusFast
03-07-2009, 10:25 AM
He's 12, but he reads and writes at a freshman college level. He's been reading my scifi/fantasy for years now, and some of that stuff is pretty adult in nature. So I don't mind if he plays adult games or watches most movies, but Watchmen sounds like it might just be too extended a visual trip.

LightWuv
03-07-2009, 01:49 PM
howdy everyone,

saw the midnight screening last night.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[snip]


My fault for reading this before seeing the movie, but your point #8 kinda feels like a spoiler? I guess mostly for people who have read the comic (graphic novel, w/e), everyone else probably won't get it.

Thanks for the post, anyway. Always interesting to read what you have to say about movies and Lightwave. :)

jin choung
03-07-2009, 01:52 PM
My fault for reading this before seeing the movie, but your point #8 kinda feels like a spoiler? I guess mostly for people who have read the comic (graphic novel, w/e), everyone else probably won't get it.

Thanks for the post, anyway. Always interesting to read what you have to say about movies and Lightwave. :)

thanks and sorry... d'oh, i figured it wasn't a spoiler cuz if you've been reading about the movie at all, pretty much everyone tells you that one.

sorry if that spoilered something for you... my bad.

jin

Dexter2999
03-07-2009, 05:06 PM
I won't get to see this until next week.

Yes or No (no spoilers) am I right in that replacing the 40'ish paunchy Owl of the comics with a young athletic type changes alot about how you feel about that character. In the comics he is an aging hero who's hey-day is behind him. Then out of nowhere he gets a second chance at adventure and romance and rediscover what it is to be a hero instead of a has been with expensive toys rusting in the cellar.

Having said that, I understand 100% why they did it and I can accept it. (Like no web fluid or shooters for Spiderman.) It doesn't serve the medium. You don't have the luxury of time to fully flesh out things as you would like and I get all the other reasons.

But did you miss it?

jin choung
03-07-2009, 08:00 PM
I won't get to see this until next week.

Yes or No (no spoilers) am I right in that replacing the 40'ish paunchy Owl of the comics with a young athletic type changes alot about how you feel about that character. In the comics he is an aging hero who's hey-day is behind him. Then out of nowhere he gets a second chance at adventure and romance and rediscover what it is to be a hero instead of a has been with expensive toys rusting in the cellar.

Having said that, I understand 100% why they did it and I can accept it. (Like no web fluid or shooters for Spiderman.) It doesn't serve the medium. You don't have the luxury of time to fully flesh out things as you would like and I get all the other reasons.

But did you miss it?

actually, the ages should be correct in the movie... but as they had to portray both their "young selves" as well as their "aged selves", they did indeed pick young actors.

but in portraying the "aged selves" they didn't really go all the way. all the math indicated in the movie in terms of years would add up correctly but they just don't seem very old or very out of shape.

for niteowl2, instead of showing the paunchy middle aged guy, they just said f it and went with batman at his prime. no indication of paunch or age.

so for someone who WOULD have a problem with the age thing, you're faced with the problem of the math working out correctly but the visuals betraying it.

funny.

jin

Chris S. (Fez)
03-07-2009, 08:40 PM
Caught the midnight screening as well. I agree with Jin's assessment, especially his feeling that the film seemed at times like a glorified synopsis. Makes me wonder how much drama/suspense/story was consciously sacrificed in order to get the theatrical release under 3 hours (*in terms of the screenplay, not the comic).

Hopefully a Watchmen director's cut is on its way.

aidenvfx
03-07-2009, 09:38 PM
Caught the midnight screening as well. I agree with Jin's assessment, especially his feeling that the film seemed at times like a glorified synopsis. Makes me wonder how much drama/suspense/story was consciously sacrificed in order to get the theatrical release under 3 hours (*in terms of the screenplay, not the comic).

Hopefully a Watchmen director's cut is on its way.

According to Zack Synder the Dir cut is 3hours and 10 min. So about 30 min added he also mentioned something about a possible 3 hour 25 min cut. He said all of the VFX work was done and finished for the dir cut and then it sounds like he had to cut it down a fair but for the theatrical release.

So far from what I have read it sounds like WB might have being smarter to do a Kill Bill 1 & 2 for this movie and allowed it to be from 2 hrs or 2 1/2 hrs long for each movie which would have allowed for a 4-5 hr story which might have worked better. (I have not seen the film just going by the trend that alot of people are saying about the movie)

Dexter2999
03-07-2009, 11:10 PM
I have commented on the subject of movie running times and it's impact on character developement on other boards. I will repeat it here. The number of characters introduced and the time necessary to flesh them out as they contribute to advancing the plot is limited by run time and the public's willingness to sit still for these long films.

You know way back when they actually had an intermission.Too bad they don't do that anymore. It would open the door for four hour movies.

From the standpoint of telling an epic story, a series of films, like LORD OF THE RINGS or HARRY POTTER, introduce a character in one movie and can flesh them out in the next. The problem comes in how do you guarantee a series like those unless they are pre-published works with built in audiences? With a cost adjustment I find myself really attracted the mini-series or HBO type series such as DEADWOOD.

It doesn't have the glamour of a theatrical release but when I think of the limitations it lifts off the film maker, I just think "Wow!"

Exception
03-08-2009, 11:55 AM
While I agree on some of the points, I saw this movie last night and have to get this off my chest:

This is most likely the worst movie I have seen in the past decade, save for one awfully produced student film I saw last year. Here's why:

- The story is politicized like crazy. It's more like a piece of American right wing political propaganda than anything else. Distrurbing to the max!
- Worst directing I've seen in ages, flat, uninspiring
- Worst script you can imagine, no flow, no tension line
- Shoddy camerawork that doesn't know what it wants to do
- Special FX I could do better by myself with a single computer. Dr. Manhattan is a complete joke. Even his lips are out of sync... I can see polygon edges and raytrace errors on that structure on mars... appalling color grading, bad plate matching and motion tracking, bad lighting
- The music is uninspired, bland nonsense, save for where they just used some pop tunes to get some emotional response
- Choreography is of the canned type.
- Excessive unnecessary gore. Completely uncalled for violence that doesn't help the narrative, suspense or anything else
- I don't think there was an editor involved
- Dumb, flat one dimensional characters
- Bad acting, on top of bad directing
- It's impossibly slow, and never builds up to anything beyond 'mildly entertaining'.
- How bad is Dr. Manhattan's acting, CG, model, FX, voice over, style, animation, tracking, mattes... you name it?!


My goodness, what a complete flop of a film. I didn't walk out because I was waiting for it to actually start. Mind you I have enjoyed the Dark Knight and Iron Man and several other super hero movies with great pleasure.

The political spin that this movie has been given makes me sick to the stomach. Superhero movies should not try to brainwash you in some sick scenario that in its undercurrents tries to not only admit but also justify 9/11 as an inside job (seriously, pay attention to the symbolism, the zeppelin flying into the world trade center in the background, the large corporation blowing up its own country's cities to prevent greater doom, the argument that Vietnam has made the US go 'insane' as a country, The Russians threatening to launch 15.000 nukes just because... they can?, Nixon being heroicized, killing millions to save billions being an acceptable primary pathway, etc etc)

It doesn't surprise me that this highly politically colored and brainwashing movie is so poorly made. I'm sure any decent actor with half a brain would have said no to the script, no proper script writer wants to make such a piece of poor propaganda, and no decent special effects company is going to want to associate themselves with this sort of bile.

Seriously, if you watch it, be careful what is being fed into you for three hours. And then wish you had those three excruciating hours back. Watching Iron man's trailer on repeat for 3 hours would be a better night of entertainment.

Dexter2999
03-08-2009, 02:15 PM
The political spin that this movie has been given makes me sick to the stomach. Superhero movies should not try to brainwash you in some sick scenario that in its undercurrents tries to not only admit but also justify 9/11 as an inside job (seriously, pay attention to the symbolism, the zeppelin flying into the world trade center in the background, the large corporation blowing up its own country's cities to prevent greater doom, the argument that Vietnam has made the US go 'insane' as a country, The Russians threatening to launch 15.000 nukes just because... they can?, Nixon being heroicized, killing millions to save billions being an acceptable primary pathway, etc etc)

It doesn't surprise me that this highly politically colored and brainwashing movie is so poorly made. I'm sure any decent actor with half a brain would have said no to the script, no proper script writer wants to make such a piece of poor propaganda, and no decent special effects company is going to want to associate themselves with this sort of bile.

Seriously, if you watch it, be careful what is being fed into you for three hours. And then wish you had those three excruciating hours back. Watching Iron man's trailer on repeat for 3 hours would be a better night of entertainment.


This is stuff from the comic. Have you read the comic? I mean it is possible to ignore in the graphics novel because your eyes can skim over things. Whereas if you want to include what was a detail and an undercurrent from the book, in a movie it probably becomes a bit more pronounced.


And that plot about destruction unifying a population was good enough for the TV show HEROS to rip off. In the comic however it was an "alien invasion" which I saw sort of "borrowed" for THE INCREDIBLES. In any event it was a staged event to promote an agenda which can be said of both HEROS and THE INCREDIBLES.

Lighten up, Sir.

OnlineRender
03-08-2009, 03:17 PM
ALAN MOORE has done the right thing and avoided putting his name on it , no wonder after the last few films they have done .
granted the director is very artistcly talanted but i feel this film will let me down ,

watchin tonight late viewing .............

jin choung
03-08-2009, 03:40 PM
it's not right wing propaganda though. unless you take a covert american assassination of jfk by a "superhero" to be somehow glorifying of the right.

it's ANTI right wing propaganda. seriously, alan moore is not a fan of nixon - glorification was not the intent of having him there.

look at the entire movie - the milieu of the world in which the right has been in control for so long. look at the streets. look at the world political situation. the motif that what humans want is hell.

it's a critique AGAINST the right.

you might have to watch the movie again or at least read the comics to understand that the "bile" you think you saw was actually the opposite!

jin

skate23
03-08-2009, 03:48 PM
aint seen it yet, and probably will, but i'm not surprised moore has disowned it again...
V for Vendetta, From Hell, Watchmen, the three greatest graphic novels ever, bar none...he is even great in prose- check 'Voice of the fire', his 1996 novel about the history and psycho-geography of northampton- the most mind altering first 50 pages you will find anywhere beyond James Joyce-and a Robert Anton Wilson fan to boot...He is a colossus in literature, full stop, never mind in a graphic format...and one of my greatest ever influences...but he has said repeatedly these things are unfilmable, and despite wanting desperately to make them myself, I guess he is right...some concepts take longer to sink in than a movie offers...and a graphic novel has no duration...you can wallow in it as long as you like...
also dont forget DC stiffed the guy for most of his meisterwerks in a monumental way...then sold the rights!!
god forbid anyone ever tries to make Illuminatus! - or Miracleman, for that matter.
anyway, enjoy it if you go, but read the originals! all hail alan moore!
john:jam:

LightWuv
03-08-2009, 05:13 PM
thanks and sorry... d'oh, i figured it wasn't a spoiler cuz if you've been reading about the movie at all, pretty much everyone tells you that one.

sorry if that spoilered something for you... my bad.

jin

I'm seeing it tomorrow and I've already forgotten what #8 was. :D

Nobody remind me!

And I think the heads-up on the running time would forgive any and all spoilers - I KNOW I will put that info to good use!

Exception
03-09-2009, 12:27 PM
you might have to watch the movie again or at least read the comics to understand that the "bile" you think you saw was actually the opposite!


I don't have to do anything.
I'm taking this movie exactly as it comes at face value: poor, piltically corrupted and the worst production value in ages.
I'm not interested in any left vs right discussion, the movie is severely politically coloured, and it's no interest of me which side it hangs on, either a very nasty justification of the extremes of the right or an even worse villifying of the right. It's of no interest to me where that came from.

And why should I lighten up? I paid to see this movie, I went here with my girldfriend who I only get to see rarely because an ocean separates us, and one does not expect a movie with such incredibly poor value to be projected on your retina. A complete waste of time. Just because the production team had a massive advertisement budget and got it in all major cinemas, doesn't make it worth defending.

IgnusFast
03-09-2009, 12:48 PM
I thought Watchmen was a spectacular movie. I just don't get all the vitriol with regard to it; it surprises me just how polarizing a piece of entertainment can be. Especially something as completely unrealistic as this was. I mean really - I loved the comic series, which was later upgraded to "graphic novel" status. But that's ALL it is. It's not like the books contained brilliant prose in the first place. They were heavy, dark, and incredibly entertaining, but ultimately on the light end of literature. Something Stephen King could have whipped up after one nightmare.

I think one major issue with regard to movies that are based on books or other media - it can be hard to relate to the characters because with such a large cast, 2-3 hours is just not enough time to really absorb everything. And since they're feeding you the images, your imagination isn't involved either. Tends to leave much more of a "either you get it or you don't" impression.

I loved it, and will definitely go see it again. :)

PointC
03-09-2009, 12:53 PM
I loved it, and will definitely go see it again. :)

So what was the decision on taking your son?

TheDynamo
03-09-2009, 12:59 PM
I would call it a decent film. It certainly re-engages me to read the book again. Too bad that the movie felt long even before it was getting long in actual time.

I think the fellow they cast for Rorschach was DEAD ON for the look in the comic.

-Rob

IgnusFast
03-09-2009, 01:01 PM
So what was the decision on taking your son?

We didn't take him, and it was probably a good decision. I say probably because while it wasn't quite as bad overall as I'd heard, the few questionable scenes were pretty rough. Even my wife looked away a few times, and she's built up a fair immunity to "my movies". :)

I'll probably let him watch it once it's released for home viewing, where I can help him put everything in perspective, and underscore the fact that except for the war and the assassination, nothing in it was real, or even very realistic.

Though at times, I have wished I could mess with the atomic structure of certain individuals who will remain nameless.

IgnusFast
03-09-2009, 01:06 PM
I think the fellow they cast for Rorschach was DEAD ON for the look in the comic.

-Rob

Couldn't agree with you more. He did a fantastic job of emoting with the mask on (he was no Hugo Weaving, but who is?), had a great bat-voice, and the physical similarity to that of the book was excellent.

I applaud whomever did the casting for hiring a relatively short actor for the role - they could have tried to find someone more physically imposing, which would have wrecked some of what really made the character scary.

DiscreetFX
03-09-2009, 02:23 PM
Cool movie, any of the VFX done with LightWave 3D? If not what was used?

OnlineRender
03-09-2009, 02:49 PM
Small spoiler , this put me at un ease as soon as it started look at room number , why does a director do that , we know what films he made before this .................Alan Moore is one of the most talanted people i have had the fortune to meet , and i can see why he took his name of this project

CGI SAVED THE FILM as always with these films
ACTING : hmmmmm to much like SIN CITY and over acted
SCRIPT : Hmmm pridictable
LENGTH : to long , but i suppose it had to be to tell the story

Overall i generally enjoyed the film but could have had more ...

as always killed it with love story , and what the deal with blue dude , looked like is was ripped direct from zbrush base model with a bit of glow added

GregMalick
03-09-2009, 02:58 PM
I'll probably get slammed for my opinion - but Alice & I both thought this was a horrible film. Not the worst film in a decade - indeed it did "look" good - but for a totally different reason.

Basically there is not a single redeeming human quality shown in this movie.

Politicians/Governments: all bad.
Scientists: all bad.
Police: all bad.
Correctional Officers: all bad.
Psychiatrists: bad & stupid.
The Press: all bad.
Businessmen: all bad.
Prisoners: all bad.
Crowds: all bad.
Wives: all bad. In fact Alice pointed out that all the women seemed to be whores.

Humanity: bad, bad, bad.

It makes Dr. Manhattans "epiphany" on Mars ring hollow.
It make you wonder about Ozymandius' selfish & ruthless motivations.

And it absolutely makes you wonder why an artist that has painted such a nasty degrading picture of humanity - would sell out by having humanity "saved" by a "Cheap Trick". it would have made more sense to wipe out this alternate reality. The 1950's pulp comic writers would have done that in a heartbeat.

This is no literary triumph, no cinematic conquest.
It's just a tawdry CG extravaganza - counterfeiting artistry by it's degradation of humanity.

OnlineRender
03-09-2009, 03:00 PM
i'll probably get slammed for my opinion - but alice & i both thought this was a horrible film. Not the worst film in a decade - indeed it did "look" good - but for a totally different reason.

Basically there is not a single redeeming human quality shown in this movie.

Politicians/governments: All bad.
Scientists: All bad.
Police: All bad.
Correctional officers: All bad.
Psychiatrists: Bad & stupid.
The press: All bad.
Businessmen: All bad.
Prisoners: All bad.
Crowds: All bad.
Wives: All bad. In fact alice pointed out that all the women seemed to be whores.

Humanity: Bad, bad, bad.

It makes dr. Manhattans "epiphany" on mars ring hollow.
It make you wonder about ozymandius' selfish & ruthless motivations.

And it absolutely makes you wonder why an artist that has painted such a nasty degrading picture of humanity - would sell out by having humanity "saved" by a "cheap trick". It would have made more sense to wipe out this alternate reality. The 1950's pulp comic writers would have done that in a heartbeat.

This is no literary triumph, no cinematic conquest.
It's just a tawdry cg extravaganza - counterfeiting artistry by it's degradation of humanity.

what he said

PointC
03-09-2009, 03:05 PM
Wow - this film sure seems polarizing. I haven't seen it yet, but will do so this week. Now I don't know what to expect. :stumped:

jin choung
03-09-2009, 03:44 PM
I don't have to do anything.
I'm taking this movie exactly as it comes at face value: poor, piltically corrupted....

lol...

politically corrupted... HOW?

you don't have to do anything but you had a pretty strong critique of a political point that was actually the diametric opposite of what was presented.

kinda discredits your take on the movie.... i.e. you hated a movie you didn't actually understand....

>shrug<

ain't nothin' to me...

jin

LightWuv
03-09-2009, 06:38 PM
OK just returned from the movies.

It's funny to go back and read Jin's first post after watching the film. Some worthwhile thoughts there, thanks for sharing.

But yeah, as for the movie, lots of grievances if you set the bar too high for mainstream Hollywood, but overall pretty OK.

The impotence scene and the return to potency scene should have been inverted in duration and graphic rendition - that would have felt more like the setting of the comic to me. Perhaps the theme is still too tabu. Anybody else notice how delicately that was handled, compared to the violence and functional sex?

But I guess - fine like this.


And don't forget Dr. Manhattan's ever present shlong dangling about as he makes his way from scene to scene..

Unless his son has one of those himself - a happy coincidence that might leave more time for talking about the demonstrations of emotional scarring, rape love, and the well-meant mass murderings :)

(I'm sure we all would have different lists for dis/allowing our kids to see this movie at age x, which is why we'd probably all agree that everybody else aren't fit to be parents and they're lucky their kids turned as well as they did :D)

jasonwestmas
03-09-2009, 07:46 PM
I'll probably get slammed for my opinion - but Alice & I both thought this was a horrible film. Not the worst film in a decade - indeed it did "look" good - but for a totally different reason.

Basically there is not a single redeeming human quality shown in this movie.

Politicians/Governments: all bad.
Scientists: all bad.
Police: all bad.
Correctional Officers: all bad.
Psychiatrists: bad & stupid.
The Press: all bad.
Businessmen: all bad.
Prisoners: all bad.
Crowds: all bad.
Wives: all bad. In fact Alice pointed out that all the women seemed to be whores.

Humanity: bad, bad, bad.

It makes Dr. Manhattans "epiphany" on Mars ring hollow.
It make you wonder about Ozymandius' selfish & ruthless motivations.

And it absolutely makes you wonder why an artist that has painted such a nasty degrading picture of humanity - would sell out by having humanity "saved" by a "Cheap Trick". it would have made more sense to wipe out this alternate reality. The 1950's pulp comic writers would have done that in a heartbeat.

This is no literary triumph, no cinematic conquest.
It's just a tawdry CG extravaganza - counterfeiting artistry by it's degradation of humanity.

Totally agree, nothing literary or rewarding about this heap.

Ok, saw the film today out of boredom I guess. Although I love the alternate reality super hero theme this movie does a lame job of taking advantage of it. The writing lacks an awesome amount of imagination, the best the writer could do for this movie was to make all the characters feel really hollow and talk about emotions that don't go beyond a 10 year old's comprehension, throw on top some gore, sex and violence, hardly a cute or interesting trick, it really did nothing to enhance the way I felt about the writing. I saw some really neat ideas begin to surface within the characters only to be snuffed out with a mighty dose of ambiguity and malignant will of the heart with all it's realistically mundane fortitude.

RebelHill
03-09-2009, 07:49 PM
went to see it last night...

it was bollocks

jin choung
03-09-2009, 08:01 PM
Cool movie, any of the VFX done with LightWave 3D? If not what was used?

not knowing anything about the production...

i'd say maya.

: )

jin

AdamAvenali
03-09-2009, 08:08 PM
Cool movie, any of the VFX done with LightWave 3D? If not what was used?

i havent read it but cgtalk posted a production thingy on it a bit ago, it might mention it in there:

http://features.cgsociety.org/story_custom.php?story_id=4947

as far as my opinion, i just dont know yet. i saw it saturday and still have yet to form an opinion. six of us went to see it, three liked it, two did not, and well i just havent decided yet haha

AbnRanger
03-10-2009, 12:56 AM
He's 12, but he reads and writes at a freshman college level. He's been reading my scifi/fantasy for years now, and some of that stuff is pretty adult in nature. So I don't mind if he plays adult games or watches most movies, but Watchmen sounds like it might just be too extended a visual trip.Saw it last night, and while I'm rarely surprised at what comes out of Hollywood scriptwriter's minds and makes it onto the screen...this movie seemed, like Quinton Tarintino's flicks, to attempt to give decency a flaming middle finger.

What bothers me is why all these blatant attempts by Hollywood to stick their finger in the eye of anyone with any shred of religious belief? Why do they feel the need to be so openly hostile and antagonistic? Is it bitterness over losing Prop 8 in California (I know that chaps their hide...so just maybe it's retaliation)? Why does there need to be a Bible shown during intercourse? What benefit does that serve, other than to use their platform to spew biased messages? Same goes for singing Halelujah during another sex scene?

If the aim is to sell tickets, why purposefully alienate a large portion of the population? I try to overlook what I perceive as liberal nonsense being progated through movie scripts, but sometimes you come across a movie that blatantly convey's "Hey you, Christian...get a load of this, and while you're at it F... You and your God!" Wow...how civilized is that?

This is the last time I watch a Snyder film (I didn't notice this kind of blatant antagonism in 300...) and I'm going to have to pay closer attention to movie reviews before I head off to the theater.

jin choung
03-10-2009, 01:04 AM
What bothers me is why all these blatant attempts by Hollywood to stick their finger in the eye of anyone with any shred of religious belief? Why do they feel the need to be so openly hostile and antagonistic?

why not?

some film makers will share your beliefs and they have the freedom to make "the passion of the christ" or "narnia" or whatever.

others DON'T and have no affection for such beliefs... as you may have no affection for scientologists or buddhists or wiccans or whatever.

so that being the case, why must all or even any expression be agreeable to your demographic?

and it's perfectly fine that you vote with your dollars but sticking fingers in eyes is what this country is all about. this is the crux of freedom of expression.

if you don't like it, no one's forcing you to go see it.

it's not like it's state sponsored or something....

...cough....

jin

Exception
03-10-2009, 02:01 AM
you don't have to do anything but you had a pretty strong critique of a political point that was actually the diametric opposite of what was presented.

kinda discredits your take on the movie.... i.e. you hated a movie you didn't actually understand....


Ah, really?
Jin to the rescue, the all-knowing ruler of al that is right and wrong, the beholder of truth and justice, the crystal ball of the singular meaning of the universe.

Perhaps I understand this film better than you think, Jin, why don't you watch it again instead, and get off your singular tract high horse? Perhaps I choose not to cross-analyze this fiolm because it isn't worth a single brain-cell? Perhaps a creation becomes independent of intent once it's hurled into the world? Perhaps you don't know everything, and perhaps you have no idea why exactly I say what I say?
The impertinence...

And just to be constructive (which can't be said about your comment): Even if there can be such a thing as "misunderstanding" in the context of analyzing a non-singular message (paradox), the confusion would still be in the message itself. Also, I already said, it doesn't matter which way it polarizes, it does it, and it does it in the wrong way, at the wrong time, in the wrong place.

jin choung
03-10-2009, 02:14 AM
- The story is politicized like crazy. It's more like a piece of American right wing political propaganda than anything else. Distrurbing to the max!


>shrug<

jin

Exception
03-10-2009, 02:41 AM
jin

>quiver<

archijam
03-10-2009, 02:51 AM
I am nervous about this film. I have not read any of this thread - I refuse to read any post of Jin, proporting not to spoil ;) .. not possible.

Since when is nightowl muscular? Where's his beer gut? WHY! It seems the director has not even read the original novel.

*sigh*

PS. I'm not coming back in here until I've seen it ;)

AbnRanger
03-10-2009, 03:04 AM
why not?

some film makers will share your beliefs and they have the freedom to make "the passion of the christ" or "narnia" or whatever.

others DON'T and have no affection for such beliefs... as you may have no affection for scientologists or buddhists or wiccans or whatever.

so that being the case, why must all or even any expression be agreeable to your demographic?

and it's perfectly fine that you vote with your dollars but sticking fingers in eyes is what this country is all about. this is the crux of freedom of expression.

if you don't like it, no one's forcing you to go see it.

it's not like it's state sponsored or something....

...cough....

jinIn a cinema class I took, we discussed topics like this in some detail. My point is this...theatre is theatre. Leave the political grandstanding and cultural cheap shots for rallies and news pundits.
When I pay $10 a ticket, I go to "Get Away"...get out of the house for a bit...not to go and see how much antagonism I can endure. I can get that on the tube 24/7 for free.
I don't expect producers to necessarily produce something for either liberal or conservative consumption...just a good flick, that makes it worth the $10.
Morality aside completely, I've seen stuff in a film and thought, "how in the world does this contribute to the movie, plot/story in any meaningful way?" Sometimes they could've saved themselves a good deal of time and money by leaving those things out.
The examples I gave fall into that category. Yet I understood it for what it really was...a brazen slap...not simply material some people might find offensive. It was intended to offend. And on that point, I have to ask why? The ultimate objective is to sell to as broad an audience as possible.
Why would you purposely inject material specifically designed to profane someone's beliefs, especially when it doesn't contribute to the story or theme in any reasonable way? Let Snyder try and do that by pissing on a Koran and see how long his shelf life will be, thereafter.
And you say this is what makes America great...by having no class at all? It's because the "Christian Right" doesn't put out a Fatwah (sp?), and threaten to de-capitate the infidel, that Snyder feels safe in spitting on our shoes.

jin choung
03-10-2009, 03:59 AM
In a cinema class I took, we discussed topics like this in some detail. My point is this...theatre is theatre. Leave the political grandstanding and cultural cheap shots for rallies and news pundits.
When I pay $10 a ticket, I go to "Get Away"...get out of the house for a bit...not to go and see how much antagonism I can endure. I can get that on the tube 24/7 for free.
I don't expect producers to necessarily produce something for either liberal or conservative consumption...just a good flick, that makes it worth the $10.
Morality aside completely, I've seen stuff in a film and thought, "how in the world does this contribute to the movie, plot/story in any meaningful way?" Sometimes they could've saved themselves a good deal of time and money by leaving those things out.
The examples I gave fall into that category. Yet I understood it for what it really was...a brazen slap...not simply material some people might find offensive. It was intended to offend. And on that point, I have to ask why? The ultimate objective is to sell to as broad an audience as possible.
Why would you purposely inject material specifically designed to profane someone's beliefs, especially when it doesn't contribute to the story or theme in any reasonable way? Let Snyder try and do that by pissing on a Koran and see how long his shelf life will be.
And you say this is what makes America great...by having no class at all?

i find the fact that hate groups are allowed to spread their poison on the internet "without class"... but yeah, the fact that they can *IS*INDEED* what makes america great. protects anybody so that it can protect everybody.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

and ESCAPISM is one aspect of cinema... but its not necessarily its most important or even its most respected characteristic.

at its poles, it's what separates a "fun" movie from an "important" movie.

watchmen is not an important movie. it's not even a very fun movie at all imo but it's not because of the message. it's just not a great or memorable piece of cinema.

but the idea that films can't (or shouldn't) be inflammatory is just puzzling to me.

lots of people found "the passion of the christ" offensive. namely jews. should it not have been made then?

lots of people found "bowling for columbine" offensive. namely gun toting/loving republicans. should that not have been made?

or "the killing fields" or "platoon" or "the battle of algiers" or "all the president's men" or "network" or "full metal jacket" or "the red badge of courage" or "all quiet on the western front" or "the green berets" etc etc etc.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

you're saying a lot of things but i suspect your primary criticism is not against the slap but against the the clumsiness of its attack? that it wasn't integral to the story?

that's a valid criticism of the artlessness of the attack (and the film).

but that's a separate contention from whether a film "should" attack per se.

in the best movies, there is a very strong point of view, that is more or less one sided, that is being conveyed about the nature of the world. and whether that pov is for or against christianity or religion in general or atheism or public schools or single parenting or abortion or capitalism or technology or whatever, that "slap" is totally valid.

but i guess you might have been blind sided going into a "comic book movie". as i say, voting with your dollars is completely the prerogative of the consumer and it can and will influence what will get greenlighted in the future.

(but there is the OPPOSITE CRITICISM that movies that appeal so much to commerce are watered down to a degree that makes them completely irrelevant to everything)

anyhoo, i'm just disagreeing with the contention that a movie shouldn't "slap you in the face" in principle. i disagree with that completely.

jin

jin choung
03-10-2009, 04:18 AM
It's because the "Christian Right" doesn't put out a Fatwah (sp?), and threaten to de-capitate the infidel, that Snyder feels safe in spitting on our shoes.

absolutely.

in america, no one is safe from criticism. and this is good. for everyone. everyone's free to live in their glass houses but everybody's got rocks in their pockets too. makes everyone re-evaluate whether they really want to live in a glass house or maybe they should rethink this whole glass house thing and maybe come up with a sturdier house.

there are people who seek to live apart from that... they usually live in "compounds".... generally, this is not good for anybody and really not good for them.

a child that is never exposed to germs is gonna be one helluva frail child.

you're suggesting somehow that a fatwah (i have no fing idea how it's spelled either) and decapitation of those who disagree with you is a solution?

besides, if you're on the side of truth, what have you got to fear? if you're on the winning side, why do the taunts of the losers bug you? if God is for you, who can be against you? fatwahs seem unnecessary by definition... but that's just me.

jin

OnlineRender
03-10-2009, 05:24 AM
tOOOOOOOO deep for me .... i can understand most of the points that are made , i reckon jin you know what your talking about , although the large sandwich in your picture looks tasty and is rather off puttin, but thats another matter .

the film was OK , CGI SAVED it , forget moral or political views and marvel at how technology is moving so fast that our feet don't even touch the ground .

Alan Moore done the correct thing and sat back and said dont put my name on it .
Movies are out to make money and give the main target audince what they expect and need , I watch alot of raw homegrown films , ps Slumdog Millionare Overated ............... when you go into the cinema do not expect to see something that has not already been done before .

Originallity is plagirism without being caught !

AbnRanger
03-10-2009, 05:36 AM
absolutely.

in america, no one is safe from criticism. and this is good. for everyone. everyone's free to live in their glass houses but everybody's got rocks in their pockets too. makes everyone re-evaluate whether they really want to live in a glass house or maybe they should rethink this whole glass house thing and maybe come up with a sturdier house.

there are people who seek to live apart from that... they usually live in "compounds".... generally, this is not good for anybody and really not good for them.

a child that is never exposed to germs is gonna be one helluva frail child.

you're suggesting somehow that a fatwah (i have no fing idea how it's spelled either) and decapitation of those who disagree with you is a solution?

besides, if you're on the side of truth, what have you got to fear? if you're on the winning side, why do the taunts of the losers bug you? if God is for you, who can be against you? fatwahs seem unnecessary by definition... but that's just me.

jinMany of the movies you listed may be what you would classify as controversial... and there will always be controversy surrounding a small percentage of films, anyway. But the point was not that filmmakers should avoid it at all costs. It's when content is PURELY INTENDED for no other purpose but a mean-spirited (not to be confused with controversial subject matter) attempt to spit in the eye of a large percentage of moviegoers.
I know what Michael Moore's work contains...and Tarintino's,etc...and I do vote with my pocketbook. I doubt a large percentage of Jews would be compelled to watch the Passion of the Christ, knowing that there's no hidden agenda. It is what it is...another re-enactment of the Crucifixion. Happens every Easter, and it is never done to incite or antagonize Jews. After all, he was the only Jew, the only man in history with a multitude of eyewitness testimony to have perfomed miraculous feats daily that only God Himself could do. He was/is history's only real Superman. Even his blood enemies admitted he did these miracles.
In light of Gibson's anti-semitic statements well after the movie was made, there probably was some merit to the claims that was made in reference to how the Jewish Rulers were "visually" portrayed (nasty looking teeth).

Nevertheless, why do you think the Passion of the Christ made such a box office hit when no one in Hollywood would touch it?
It's one of the reasons Disney has tried to maintain its "Family-Friendly" mantra...because there is a huge market to be tapped if Hollywood can just stick to entertainment, and not using the box office to promote their vices or political talking points.

In light of this, movies like Ironman, SpiderMan and Hulk can walk away with record or near record paydays...cause they largely just stick to entertainment. I thought 300 fell within that category, even though it had plenty of R-Rated content.

Violence and sexual content is not the issue here. It's the explicit cheap shots that come out of nowhere...when a moviegoer simply thinks they're going to watch another Iron Man or Hulk action film (loaded with tons of VFX shots).
No one is attacking anyone's "rights" to say or do stupid things, but whether circumstances merit it. I would've thought more highly of the movie...even if I thought some of the scenes were over the top, if it weren't for the brazenness of those few unwarranted additions (there are thousands of 80's songs that would've been more appropriate to the scene....all morality aside).
Why does liberal or conservative (doesn't exist in Hollywood, but for the sake of the argument) hot button issues need to be dragged into your average action film? It's like inviting folks to your big Superbowl party, and at key points in the game, you turn the set off and go on a political rant how Proposition 8 was a conspiracy of the Bush administration...

AbnRanger
03-10-2009, 06:11 AM
Burn the Heretic! Kill the Mutant! Purge the Unclean!

:DThe point being...for real...all joking aside...if Snyder tried the same kind of stunts, pointing his bony finger in the eyes of Muslims, it would be front page news for weeks. You remember what happened to the artist of one little cartoon section of a paper.

So, why choose to incite Christians? Safer targets?

AbnRanger
03-10-2009, 06:18 AM
tOOOOOOOO deep for me .... i can understand most of the points that are made , i reckon jin you know what your talking about , although the large sandwich in your picture looks tasty and is rather off puttin, but thats another matter .

the film was OK , CGI SAVED it , forget moral or political views and marvel at how technology is moving so fast that our feet don't even touch the ground .

Alan Moore done the correct thing and sat back and said dont put my name on it .
Movies are out to make money and give the main target audince what they expect and need , I watch alot of raw homegrown films , ps Slumdog Millionare Overated ............... when you go into the cinema do not expect to see something that has not already been done before .

Originallity is plagirism without being caught !All I know is that I enjoyed all 3 LOTR movies, the Spiderman films, Dark Knight/Batman, Iron Man and Hulk. They chose to leave political and religious hot button issues out, and they got paid BIG TIME. Did the movies suffer without all that nonsense. Not one bit. I suggest Hollywood film makers take notes and follow their lead

mattclary
03-10-2009, 06:56 AM
Saw it last night, and while I'm rarely surprised at what comes out of Hollywood scriptwriter's minds and makes it onto the screen...this movie seemed, like Quinton Tarintino's flicks, to attempt to give decency a flaming middle finger.

What bothers me is why all these blatant attempts by Hollywood to stick their finger in the eye of anyone with any shred of religious belief? Why do they feel the need to be so openly hostile and antagonistic? Is it bitterness over losing Prop 8 in California (I know that chaps their hide...so just maybe it's retaliation)? Why does there need to be a Bible shown during intercourse? What benefit does that serve, other than to use their platform to spew biased messages? Same goes for singing Halelujah during another sex scene?

If the aim is to sell tickets, why purposefully alienate a large portion of the population? I try to overlook what I perceive as liberal nonsense being progated through movie scripts, but sometimes you come across a movie that blatantly convey's "Hey you, Christian...get a load of this, and while you're at it F... You and your God!" Wow...how civilized is that?


What haven't you heard? All the cool kids are atheists nowadays.

I couldn't agree with you more. I'm not religious. At all. But I feel like Christianity has a target on it's head. Mainly Christianity, because I think it is still cool to be a Buddhist, Wiccan, Cabbalist, etc...

You ever notice in movies if a person of color is shown as being religious, it is invariably shown in a positive light? The person will be portrayed as almost saintly. Yet, if the person is white, especially a white male, they are portrayed as a complete lunatic. One of my favorite portrayals was on Buffy the Vampire slayer by Nathan Fillion. His character seemed to throw in several stereotypes, combining Catholic Priest and southern Baptist.

mattclary
03-10-2009, 07:08 AM
as you may have no affection for scientologists or buddhists or wiccans or whatever.

so that being the case, why must all or even any expression be agreeable to your demographic?



Funny. I hadn't even read this post when I made my reply above. Here is the difference: If Buddhists or Wiccans were systematically demonized in the same way Christians are, it would be called hate speech and the person doing so would be crucified.

I reiterate, I am not religious. Don't consider myself a Christian, but I am smart and observant enough to recognize the systematic attack on Christianity.

I know a guy who's son attended a Christian private high school. One year for Halloween, he dresses as a druid. He has a bible with him. He proceeds to tear pages out and blow his nose with them. His father and another friend of mine thought this was hilarious. I don't care what you believe, but I was raised to respect fellow human beings, and this is just disrespectful.

mattclary
03-10-2009, 07:29 AM
The point being...for real...all joking aside...if Snyder tried the same kind of stunts, pointing his bony finger in the eyes of Muslims, it would be front page news for weeks. You remember what happened to the artist of one little cartoon section of a paper.

So, why choose to incite Christians? Safer targets?

As a matter o fact, this happened with "300".

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1598886,00.html

AbnRanger
03-10-2009, 07:38 AM
I'll probably get slammed for my opinion - but Alice & I both thought this was a horrible film. Not the worst film in a decade - indeed it did "look" good - but for a totally different reason.

Basically there is not a single redeeming human quality shown in this movie.

Politicians/Governments: all bad.
Scientists: all bad.
Police: all bad.
Correctional Officers: all bad.
Psychiatrists: bad & stupid.
The Press: all bad.
Businessmen: all bad.
Prisoners: all bad.
Crowds: all bad.
Wives: all bad. In fact Alice pointed out that all the women seemed to be whores.

Humanity: bad, bad, bad.

It makes Dr. Manhattans "epiphany" on Mars ring hollow.
It make you wonder about Ozymandius' selfish & ruthless motivations.

And it absolutely makes you wonder why an artist that has painted such a nasty degrading picture of humanity - would sell out by having humanity "saved" by a "Cheap Trick". it would have made more sense to wipe out this alternate reality. The 1950's pulp comic writers would have done that in a heartbeat.

This is no literary triumph, no cinematic conquest.
It's just a tawdry CG extravaganza - counterfeiting artistry by it's degradation of humanity.Between you and Jin....who needs Siskle and Ebert? Viewpoints expressed here are more practical and insightful than a few couch potatoes that likely never had a thing to do with the industry (journalism majors, maybe?)

AbnRanger
03-10-2009, 07:46 AM
As a matter o fact, this happened with "300".

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1598886,00.htmlThe reason there isn't much weight to that is those Persians weren't Muslim...that battle was wwaaayyyy before Mohammad. Plus, say what they want...even though the movie was greatly exaggerated in many respects...it still was true. True that a small contingent of Greek soldiers kicked their behinds with Xerxes watching it on a large screen display nearby.

mattclary
03-10-2009, 07:49 AM
The reason there isn't much weight to that is those Persians weren't Muslim...

There wouldn't have been much weight regardless... Just an example of a group who gets pissed at the drop of a hat for any imagined slight.

OOPS. Did I just put myself on the jihad list?

Bill_Evans
03-10-2009, 07:56 AM
I'll probably let him watch it once it's released for home viewing, where I can help him put everything in perspective, and underscore the fact that except for the war and the assassination, nothing in it was real, or even very realistic.


And even the assassination wasnt very accurate because all wavers know it was Oswald in the Book Depository with the Carcano.
-Bill

shrox
03-10-2009, 07:57 AM
To me, many "superheros" seem manufactured, retreads of Superman, Batman or similar. I haven't seen Watchmen yet, but the studio here has all the magazines and books about it. Looking at the photos, it kind of seems like it's a "me too" mentality, "here's my cool new superhero". That is one reason I don't follow the crowd to see the latest retooling of the Greek and Roman gods of myth. Of course, they might have been aliens...

I just want a friendly and non homicidal HAL 9000...

Exception
03-10-2009, 08:07 AM
I reiterate, I am not religious. Don't consider myself a Christian, but I am smart and observant enough to recognize the systematic attack on Christianity.

Not as much as how Islam is being villified to the extreme.

Bill_Evans
03-10-2009, 08:09 AM
lots of people found "bowling for columbine" offensive. namely gun toting/loving republicans. should that not have been made?


I dont personally care that Bowling for Columbine was made, I care that Bowling for Columbine is classified as a Documentary, which its not for lots of reasons, I love the Kangaroo camera trick at the end with Heston, the Academy should be ashamed for letting the picture be nominated much less winning as a documentary.
-bill

AbnRanger
03-10-2009, 08:13 AM
To me, many "superheros" seem manufactured, retreads of Superman, Batman or similar. I haven't seen Watchmen yet, but the studio here has all the magazines and books about it. Looking at the photos, it kind of seems like it's a "me too" mentality, "here's my cool new superhero". That is one reason I don't follow the crowd to see the latest retooling of the Greek and Roman gods of myth. Of course, they might have been aliens...

I just want a friendly and non homicidal HAL 9000...I am surprised that, given the success of the Marvel series movies, that DC Comics hasn't already come out with more characters...like Green Lantern. The VFX for that would have to be splendid.

And speaking of Marvel. Why are they so adverse to suit up Wolverine just as he is in the comic books. Just seeing Hugh Jackman with some claws doesn't sell the character, IMHO. Put WETA on the costume design and Git-R-Done...

AbnRanger
03-10-2009, 08:22 AM
Not as much as how Islam is being villified to the extreme.I think seeing daily beheadings and children being targeted (not collateral damage from an airstrike on terrorists hiding in civilian populations) by suicide bombers DAILY...exploiting women to conduct some of those...had more to do with villifiying themselves. Moreso than the world slowly waking up to the barbaric nature of a large portion of the muslim world. Can't blame a cartoon artist for that. Sorry.
How many Christians do you see on the news beheading "Infidels?"

Bill_Evans
03-10-2009, 08:45 AM
To me, many "superheros" seem manufactured, retreads of Superman, Batman or similar. I haven't seen Watchmen yet, but the studio here has all the magazines and books about it. Looking at the photos, it kind of seems like it's a "me too" mentality, "here's my cool new superhero". That is one reason I don't follow the crowd to see the latest retooling of the Greek and Roman gods of myth. Of course, they might have been aliens...

I just want a friendly and non homicidal HAL 9000...


Actually those of us who know way too much about Watchmen, know the heroes were actually originally the Charlton Comics Heroes:

Ozymandias - Thunderbolt
Rorschach - a Melding of The Question and Mr A
Comedian - Peacemaker
Niteowl - Blue Beetle
Doctor Manhattan - Captain Atom

Originally Alan was actually going to use the characters that DC had recently acquired, but that fell through and they ending up using characters heavily based on the Charlton heroes. I enjoyed the movie, I think it missed lots of the point of the series, which I first read long before Graphic novel was an option, but its a better adaption of Moores work then V for Vendetta where they totally missed the point and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, where they didnt understand they were supposed to have a point.
-Bill

mattclary
03-10-2009, 09:09 AM
I think seeing daily beheadings and children being targeted (not collateral damage from an airstrike on terrorists hiding in civilian populations) by suicide bombers DAILY...exploiting women to conduct some of those...had more to do with villifiying themselves. Moreso than the world slowly waking up to the barbaric nature of a large portion of the muslim world. Can't blame a cartoon artist for that. Sorry.
How many Christians do you see on the news beheading "Infidels?"

What he said. And, IMO, Christianity is targeted much more than Islam.

Chris S. (Fez)
03-10-2009, 09:17 AM
Not as much as how Islam is being villified to the extreme.

In this post I will address news stories only from yesterday so that you can rest assured I am not cherry-picking unflattering headlines.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Voltaire

In other words: the freedom to offend.

I have said before, when Family Guy makes as much fun of Islam/Muslims as it does of Christians/Christianity then we will know modern moderate Islam has arrived.

Moderate Muslims and politically correct liberals, often with the best intentions, are unwittingly undermining free speech and freedom of expression in the west, doing more damage then the extremist bombs ever could. Today's headlines:

Muslim sues because colleagues laughed at his beard:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1160520/Muslim-PC-sues-workmates-laughed-beard.html

Wheelchair-bound man sues MI5 after application for spy job rejected:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/4960867/Wheelchair-bound-man-sues-MI5-after-application-for-spy-job-rejected.html


Here is what happens in societies that do not grant citizens the freedom to express and offend:

http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Religion/?id=3.0.3085587696

"Afghanistan's Supreme Court has upheld a 20-year jail term for blasphemy handed to Afghan journalist Sayed Parwez Kambakhsh, who claimed men and women were equal."

http://www.aina.org/news/2009039174117.htm

"Libya Tortures Four Christian Converts From Islam"

Again, these are just headlines from YESTERDAY.

Why should this concern you and other folks who feel Islam is being unfairly represented by media outlets? Because the UN is trying to criminalize "defamation of religion": http://www.slate.com/id/2212662/

Here is that beard by the way. It is shameful his colleagues were not more respectful but are they criminals merely for offending the man?

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/03/09/article-1160520-03C8BBF9000005DC-847_468x677.jpg

Exception
03-10-2009, 09:20 AM
I think seeing daily beheadings and children being targeted (not collateral damage from an airstrike on terrorists hiding in civilian populations) by suicide bombers DAILY...<snip>

And where do you see these things exactly? On your TV? In your newspaper?
Ah, you have already been brainwashed... thanks for proving my point.

You might want to tell the 1.1 billion muslims that exist in the world that the propaganda you base your expressions on is not about a tiny proportion of fundamentalists that have as little to do with proper Islam as the klu klux klan has to do with christianity, but that all of the Muslim world is exactly like that. Good luck.

jasonwestmas
03-10-2009, 09:29 AM
This was all in watchmen?

Do we really have to decide which group of people are worthy enough to heap into a pot of water?

shrox
03-10-2009, 09:32 AM
Ishmael or Isaac. Choose one.

aidenvfx
03-10-2009, 09:46 AM
Saw it last night, and while I'm rarely surprised at what comes out of Hollywood scriptwriter's minds and makes it onto the screen...this movie seemed, like Quinton Tarintino's flicks, to attempt to give decency a flaming middle finger.

What bothers me is why all these blatant attempts by Hollywood to stick their finger in the eye of anyone with any shred of religious belief? Why do they feel the need to be so openly hostile and antagonistic? Is it bitterness over losing Prop 8 in California (I know that chaps their hide...so just maybe it's retaliation)? Why does there need to be a Bible shown during intercourse? What benefit does that serve, other than to use their platform to spew biased messages? Same goes for singing Halelujah during another sex scene?

If the aim is to sell tickets, why purposefully alienate a large portion of the population? I try to overlook what I perceive as liberal nonsense being progated through movie scripts, but sometimes you come across a movie that blatantly convey's "Hey you, Christian...get a load of this, and while you're at it F... You and your God!" Wow...how civilized is that?

This is the last time I watch a Snyder film (I didn't notice this kind of blatant antagonism in 300...) and I'm going to have to pay closer attention to movie reviews before I head off to the theater.

Is the graphic novel not the same way? My understanding is the movie follows the book faithfully so any anti-chritian aspects to the movie is because of the book not Zack Synder (others can correct me if I am wrong)

mattclary
03-10-2009, 09:49 AM
And where do you see these things exactly? On your TV? In your newspaper?
Ah, you have already been brainwashed... thanks for proving my point.

You might want to tell the 1.1 billion muslims that exist in the world that the propaganda you base your expressions on is not about a tiny proportion of fundamentalists that have as little to do with proper Islam as the klu klux klan has to do with christianity, but that all of the Muslim world is exactly like that. Good luck.

Here you go. ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGi9vyYzE58&playnext_from=PL&feature=PlayList&p=FFF4ECC1741EDEC1&playnext=1&index=3

Note the wink!

mattclary
03-10-2009, 09:55 AM
And where do you see these things exactly? On your TV? In your newspaper?
Ah, you have already been brainwashed... thanks for proving my point.

You might want to tell the 1.1 billion muslims that exist in the world that the propaganda you base your expressions on is not about a tiny proportion of fundamentalists that have as little to do with proper Islam as the klu klux klan has to do with christianity, but that all of the Muslim world is exactly like that. Good luck.

And on a serious note:

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/iraq-girl-suicide-bomber-aged-13-17-surrenders-still-wearing-bomb-vest

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/world/story/58950.html

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/KHA737450.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPU4UN03t7E

Sorry, didn't bother looking for beheadings.

Exception
03-10-2009, 10:15 AM
And on a serious note:
...
Sorry, didn't bother looking for beheadings.

Thanks for more of the "provings of my point".
Some sick stuff out there. Makes great sensational news. All muslims are carbomb carrying suicide bombers that will slit your throat when you draw a silly picture of them or have a short skirt. We all know this by now, don't we? All 1.1 billion of them. Just as we know that all 15 year olds are machine gun mass murderers that shoot up their schools, all black people are wife-beaters, all christians manipulative child abusers and all people from Wales wear strawberries in their underwear.

shrox
03-10-2009, 10:25 AM
...and all people from Wales wear strawberries in their underwear.

I thought it was cranberries. Well, you learn something new every day!

-EsHrA-
03-10-2009, 10:28 AM
beards can be as ridiculous as hats.


mlon

Bill_Evans
03-10-2009, 10:56 AM
Is the graphic novel not the same way? My understanding is the movie follows the book faithfully so any anti-chritian aspects to the movie is because of the book not Zack Synder (others can correct me if I am wrong)

Obviously the comic doesnt have music, so that aspect isnt in there, and the Bible scene doesnt exist (and doesnt need to be in the movie honestly) in the comic unless I have totally forgotten it. Its not as bad as bending britain being fascist because of America in Vendetta, but its definitely putting something into the movie that wasnt in the book and isnt what Moore was trying to tell the story about. Snyder is telling a story he doesnt totally understand and decides to blame the latest whipping boys for what Moore was trying to do. Making Nixon a caricature was another silly point that shows he didnt have a great grasp of the material. Alan was making points about the efforts (now recently revived with respect to Obama) in the early eighties to repeal the 22nd amendment to the constitution and drawing parallels to britain where a PM can be in charge as long as his party is. To turn that aspect of the story into a one liner about voting for him 5 times is unfortunate though likely quite intentional.
-Bill

Kuzey
03-10-2009, 02:47 PM
Not as much as how Islam is being villified to the extreme.

Good point Exception.

Not only that...but there are several wars waged against Islam at the movement, so Christianity has it good. Don't you guys think seeing people dying everyday under occupation and war is going to turn people towards extremism.

Especially, when one can argue that the aggressors happen to Christian like Bush, Blair etc. The funny thing is, some people with nothing but hatred in their hearts have the nerve to say....look, see all Muslims are terrorists, here's proof and after their own government helped to cause it.

It's a cause and effect people, pure science, one action results in an equal and opposite reaction. Where was the terrorism 20 or 30 years ago?? There wasn't anything, or at least on this scale, that's because this is something new being fed by the so called war on terror and other factors like I mentioned in another thread...culture/education/politics/government etc.

What has Bush and Blair left in their wake...not freedom or even a hint of democracy, but more extremists and terrorists, those very Western hating people. These people weren't there 30 years ago...what's changed?? You can't judge the last seven or so years and say it's been like that in all of Islam's 1400 years...that's just being insane.

One more thing, it seems the IRA is back in business. Yes, it's an action of the few, the minority. I wondering, why the guys who blame everything bad in the world on Islam, aren't shouting from the rooftops that the Irish people, and by people I mean all, the Unionist and republicans and everyone in between, are terrorists and evil. One can argue such a case, because the proof is there... and I believe that the IRA violence has lasted for far longer than anything we see in the Islamic today. The only real difference is that one is limited to one region/country and the other has many front lines over a vast area affecting more people.

Or, is it a race issue, since the Irish are white, it's not as bad. But, if it's a different foreign culture like Islam...then it's the end of the world.

ps. I have nothing against the Irish and hope the terrorists are caught and it doesn't escalate further.

Kuzey

Kuzey
03-10-2009, 03:20 PM
In this post I will address news stories only from yesterday so that you can rest assured I am not cherry-picking unflattering headlines.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Voltaire

In other words: the freedom to offend.

I have said before, when Family Guy makes as much fun of Islam/Muslims as it does of Christians/Christianity then we will know modern moderate Islam has arrived.

Moderate Muslims and politically correct liberals, often with the best intentions, are unwittingly undermining free speech and freedom of expression in the west, doing more damage then the extremist bombs ever could. Today's headlines:

Muslim sues because colleagues laughed at his beard:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1160520/Muslim-PC-sues-workmates-laughed-beard.html

Wheelchair-bound man sues MI5 after application for spy job rejected:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/4960867/Wheelchair-bound-man-sues-MI5-after-application-for-spy-job-rejected.html


Here is what happens in societies that do not grant citizens the freedom to express and offend:

http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Religion/?id=3.0.3085587696

"Afghanistan's Supreme Court has upheld a 20-year jail term for blasphemy handed to Afghan journalist Sayed Parwez Kambakhsh, who claimed men and women were equal."

http://www.aina.org/news/2009039174117.htm

"Libya Tortures Four Christian Converts From Islam"

Again, these are just headlines from YESTERDAY.

Why should this concern you and other folks who feel Islam is being unfairly represented by media outlets? Because the UN is trying to criminalize "defamation of religion": http://www.slate.com/id/2212662/

Here is that beard by the way. It is shameful his colleagues were not more respectful but are they criminals merely for offending the man?

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/03/09/article-1160520-03C8BBF9000005DC-847_468x677.jpg

Man, you crack me up....what do you do, other than look for petty articles to justify your view??

Offending someone because of his looks or faith is an sue able offense last time I checked. If the officers were racists in their actions then they are criminals, why do you think the victim is at fault because he has a funny beard. The stuff he said about the racism could be true for all I know, when was the police force ever culture friendly or sensitive. I would think if anybody would be a criminal it would mostly like be someone in the police force.

The wheelchair example is a civil case like the beard case, again...you are not seeing the wheelchair because of the fact he is a Muslim. People have the right to sue and he is taking up that option, he feels he was wronged and is doing the right thing.

The last time I checked Afghanistan was a democracy with the Help of the USA or is that all false too :D Anyway, they can do what they want and how they want to....after all, they are following an American form of democracy.

Libya, haha... you are offended by four Christian coverts been tortured, but are happy that the USA has tortured hundreds of people in many far way lands. That is funny.

You will probably blame Pakistan's collapse and the resulting extremism on Islam too...when and if it happens in the next few years and not that the Afghanistan war/USA was the cause or had a major part to play.

Kuzey

jin choung
03-10-2009, 03:40 PM
Burn the Heretic! Kill the Mutant! Purge the Unclean!

:D

for the emperor!

jin

Medi8or
03-10-2009, 03:56 PM
Muslim sues because colleagues laughed at his beard:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1160520/Muslim-PC-sues-workmates-laughed-beard.htmlGood example.
Obviously he sues because he was teased about his beard. Being called a "f'ing paki", and being ridiculed, harrassed and finally sacked has nothing to do with it. Him being a muslim was very important for me to know too..

jin choung
03-10-2009, 03:57 PM
Many of the movies you listed may be what you would classify as controversial... and there will always be controversy surrounding a small percentage of films, anyway. But the point was not that filmmakers should avoid it at all costs. It's when content is PURELY INTENDED for no other purpose but a mean-spirited (not to be confused with controversial subject matter) attempt to spit in the eye of a large percentage of moviegoers.

again, i defend the slap. but it seems you do too. you're just offended by this particular one and that's cool. you certainly have a right to be offended.

as for "offensive vs. controversial"... that's just a semantics shell game. controversy is the hubbub created by something that is genuinely offensive to somebody.

and one man's controversy is another man's genuine offense. take scorsese's movie "it's a wonderful crucifixion", otherwise known as the last temptation of christ. news reports all said it was "controversial"... it doesn't at all mitigate the fact it was genuinely offensive to many.


Violence and sexual content is not the issue here. It's the explicit cheap shots that come out of nowhere...when a moviegoer simply thinks they're going to watch another Iron Man or Hulk action film (loaded with tons of VFX shots).
No one is attacking anyone's "rights" to say or do stupid things, but whether circumstances merit it. I would've thought more highly of the movie...even if I thought some of the scenes were over the top, if it weren't for the brazenness of those few unwarranted additions (there are thousands of 80's songs that would've been more appropriate to the scene....all morality aside).
Why does liberal or conservative (doesn't exist in Hollywood, but for the sake of the argument) hot button issues need to be dragged into your average action film? It's like inviting folks to your big Superbowl party, and at key points in the game, you turn the set off and go on a political rant how Proposition 8 was a conspiracy of the Bush administration...

as i said, i think this is where you were blindsided. you thought it was going to be an "average action movie"... it wasn't supposed to be and neither was the comic.

and it's all in the eye of the beholder. for some people more sensitive than you, having sex and violence in a "good old fashioned superhero movie" is a hotbutton issue too. why did they have to "ruin a perfectly good kids movie with all this sex and violence"?

again, this is why we defend everything. cuz no one sees the issue/work/speech/expression the same as everyone else. one man's treasure is another man's trash.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

as for why christianity is picked on - it's got legitimate enemies in places of power.

you have to admit, that when christians are in power, their own agenda is not about "playing nice with the heathens". it's to exert power and influence in ways that they feel are "right".

so whether that is about banning gay marriage or attempting to take away the rights of women to have abortions or institute christian prayer in a school that would never think of allowing wiccan prayer or having the ten commandments decorate federal buildings or teach a religious cosmology in science class etc etc etc.... christians have enemies.

(note, i've framed those issues one sidedly but it's just illustrate the point that there are lots of people who see things that way and that christians have indeed made enemies).

and then there are "christians" on the lunatic fringe that hold up signs saying "God hates fags" firebomb storefronts owned by islamic business owners that don't properly represent their God but they continue to sign his name on their works anyway.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

question that i am genuinely curious about:

you seem to have no love for islam. your prerogative. what if watchmen took exactly the same kind of cheap shots at islam? take a moment to consider your reaction. honestly, would you be at all offended or would you delight in it?

and if in your heart of hearts, you would be tickled, then realize, there are plenty of folks out there that would feel the same way when christianity gets taken down a peg.

jin

GregMalick
03-10-2009, 04:32 PM
I don't think anyone misunderstood what I had actually said, but I was not taking issue with this film because of any anti-Christianity agenda in it's script. I honestly didn't see any. My problem is that it has such a slanted view of humanity. Personally, I see humanity as wonderful and terrible creatures - at the same time. That's only my personal opinion - agree or disagree - doesn't matter. But to me, any literature (or graphic novel) that takes an extreme position on either end of the spectrum is problematic. Even Disney films (Mary Poppins, Bambi, Sleeping Beauty, etc) have some dark elements. This film didn't offend my faith - it offended me by it's portrayal of the human race. Besides a little CG artistry - it had few redeeming qualities.


I'll probably get slammed for my opinion - but Alice & I both thought this was a horrible film. Not the worst film in a decade - indeed it did "look" good - but for a totally different reason.

Basically there is not a single redeeming human quality shown in this movie.

Politicians/Governments: all bad.
Scientists: all bad.
Police: all bad.
Correctional Officers: all bad.
Psychiatrists: bad & stupid.
The Press: all bad.
Businessmen: all bad.
Prisoners: all bad.
Crowds: all bad.
Wives: all bad. In fact Alice pointed out that all the women seemed to be whores.

Humanity: bad, bad, bad.

It makes Dr. Manhattans "epiphany" on Mars ring hollow.
It make you wonder about Ozymandius' selfish & ruthless motivations.

And it absolutely makes you wonder why an artist that has painted such a nasty degrading picture of humanity - would sell out by having humanity "saved" by a "Cheap Trick". it would have made more sense to wipe out this alternate reality. The 1950's pulp comic writers would have done that in a heartbeat.

This is no literary triumph, no cinematic conquest.
It's just a tawdry CG extravaganza - counterfeiting artistry by it's degradation of humanity.


BTW, I'd lay off the religious denigration if I were you.
Otherwise this thread will be closed down and made pointless.

So Who's eagerly waiting the new Star Trek movie???

Me! Me! Me!


:D

jasonwestmas
03-10-2009, 04:37 PM
So Who's eagerly waiting the new Star Trek movie???

Me! Me! Me!


:D

The last good ST movie I saw was First Contact. For some reason I find the Borg the most interesting. Are there any other really good STNG? I forget.:hijack:

Chris S. (Fez)
03-10-2009, 07:22 PM
Man, you crack me up....what do you do, other than look for petty articles to justify your view??

Please just address the articles. You can start by explaining why you think them "petty".

I will say it again: it is NOT my view you should be concerned about but the view of "extremist" Muslims who are leveraging legitimate Islamic doctrine and "moderate" Muslims who are suing all across the West for being "offended."

I limited myself to yesterday's news articles to make a point that every day offers more evidence that Islam is not the religion of peace and tolerance that you and politically correct people think it is. The way YOU see and practice Islam is almost certainly peaceful, but there are countless elements of Islam from scholarly sources that are sexist, supremist and violent. Do you deny this?



Offending someone because of his looks or faith is an sue able offense last time I checked. If the officers were racists in their actions then they are criminals, why do you think the victim is at fault because he has a funny beard.

Here is an example of "racism" from the article:

He says the first racist incident came in early 2006. He claims he was in a van with seven PCs and three 'tutor' constables - including one other Muslim - which stopped for food at a shop which did not sell halal products. When he asked if they were stopping anywhere else, he was told: 'This is it.'

Islam is an ideology, not a race. Just because his colleagues did not cater to his request for halal products does NOT make them racist. Would I personally have made another stop to accomodate my Muslim colleague? Of course! But should this accomodation be mandatory?


The stuff he said about the racism could be true for all I know, when was the police force ever culture friendly or sensitive.

That is the point. Just because the police were not "friendly and sensitive" does not make them criminals.




The wheelchair example is a civil case like the beard case, again...you are not seeing the wheelchair because of the fact he is a Muslim. People have the right to sue and he is taking up that option, he feels he was wronged and is doing the right thing..

From the article, please note the sense of entitlement:

"I should have been the preferred candidate because they said they encouraged applications from people from ethnic minorities and with disabilities."

It is NOT discrimination to NOT hire someone you feel is not best suited to the job. Unfortunately, in the UK the precedent has already been set: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7457794.stm

Muslim woman awarded £4,000 damages for "injury to feelings"



The last time I checked Afghanistan was a democracy with the Help of the USA or is that all false too :D Anyway, they can do what they want and how they want to....after all, they are following an American form of democracy.

Afghans are following Islamic Shariah law, a sexist, supremist, violent Islamic theocracy. The results speak for themselves. Shariah law is simply not compatible with democracy.

You seem convinced Islam has no part in the ongoing barbarity in Shariah compliant communities in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Please enlighten me:

1) What is the penalty for being homosexual under Shariah law?

2) What is the penalty for converting from Islam to Christianity under Shariah law?

3) Under Shariah law, is a woman's testimony equal to that of a man? How about rape trials in particular?

4) Under Shariah law, is a husband allowed under certain circumstances to physically harm his wife?




Libya, haha... you are offended by four Christian coverts been tortured, but are happy that the USA has tortured hundreds of people in many far way lands. That is funny.

Ridiculous. Show me any evidence that I am "happy" that the USA resorted to "torture." The torture and prison scandals are a shameful stain on America.

Please simply address the articles and the issues at hand. The truth is uncomfortable and inconvenient and offensive at times.



You will probably blame Pakistan's collapse and the resulting extremism on Islam too...when and if it happens in the next few years and not that the Afghanistan war/USA was the cause or had a major part to play.
Kuzey

There is no "resulting extremism." Islamic Shariah law IS extreme because it is sexist, supremist and violent. The Taliban themselves have expressed puzzlement over Obama's willingness to deal with "moderate" Taliban: http://in.reuters.com/article/email/idINIndia-38433020090310

"The Taliban are united, have one leader, one aim, one policy...I do not know why they are talking about moderate Taliban and what it means?"

AbnRanger
03-10-2009, 07:42 PM
And where do you see these things exactly? On your TV? In your newspaper?
Ah, you have already been brainwashed... thanks for proving my point.

You might want to tell the 1.1 billion muslims that exist in the world that the propaganda you base your expressions on is not about a tiny proportion of fundamentalists that have as little to do with proper Islam as the klu klux klan has to do with christianity, but that all of the Muslim world is exactly like that. Good luck.Propoganda?...Brainwashed? You're kidding right?
The same "propogandists" (news media) happens to be far more sympathetic to the plight of those poor Palestinians that were dancing in the street, wailing with joy, on 9/11 than they are Christians who go to Church on Sundays. Those damn Christians! They must be taken down for this! :D
So, you're one of those that believes the Holocaust during WWII was also proganda. Go have a hot cup of coffee (caffeinated this time), and wake up to the world around you, friend.

jin choung
03-10-2009, 07:57 PM
I limited myself to yesterday's news articles to make a point that every day offers more evidence that Islam is not the religion of peace and tolerance that you and politically correct people think it is. The way YOU see and practice Islam is almost certainly peaceful, but there are countless elements of Islam from scholarly sources that are sexist, supremist and violent. Do you deny this?


so is there in christianity. do you deny that?

jesus said he didn't come to bring harmony but a sword. to turn father against son and daughter against mother.

there are a lot of inconvenient verses in the bible as well.

and included in the bible is wholesale God condoned genocide to the last man woman and child.

if you have a problem with islam, i hope for consistencies sake you have a problem with christianity and judaism as well.

jin

jin choung
03-10-2009, 08:01 PM
Those damn Christians! They must be taken down for this! :D

it seems to me that you have somewhat of a persecution complex going on.... but let's take it at face value. that christians are being slapped and targeted.

one thing i don't get.

jesus SAID you would be hated. he said this is NOT your world. he said that you don't belong here (that your home is elsewhere) and you will not be welcome "in this world".

so the thing i don't get is that you're complaining about how christians are treated. as if it was somehow shocking.

i mean... your boss gave you pretty fair warning! didn't he?

jin

Chris S. (Fez)
03-10-2009, 08:21 PM
so is there in christianity. do you deny that?
jin

I don't deny that at all. I am a secular atheist. I drink, cuss and wench whenever I can, secure in my belief that I have no eternal soul to sully ;).

As I said before when the Family Guy producers can throw the same pies at Islam that they throw at Christianity, then we will know that modern moderate Islam has arrived. A Cartoon jesus that can be rendered without fear of fire bombs to me means that Christianity is no longer a threat to secular society.

How can Islam ever "arrive" when the UN, with the support of "moderate" Muslims, is trying to criminalize "defamation of religion"?

jin choung
03-10-2009, 08:23 PM
How can Islam ever "arrive" when the UN, with the support of "moderate" Muslims, is trying to criminalize "defamation of religion"?

right. yeah, i don't agree with that at all.

no one is and SHOULD BE free of criticisms and "slaps" (as i've been saying) when it comes in the form of speech.

but to be fair, i think that the UN movement is driven by a minority of people who mean well but don't think things through. same thing with people in the u.s. driving the prayer and creationism in school agendas. they are a vocal minority.

and as abnranger demonstrates, nobody likes their belief system slapped. so again, i think the un move is driven by people who don't like getting slapped and just aren't thinking things through.

jin

AbnRanger
03-10-2009, 08:33 PM
and then there are "christians" on the lunatic fringe that hold up signs saying "God hates fags" firebomb storefronts owned by islamic business owners that don't properly represent their God but they continue to sign his name on their works anyway. Those folks (if I'm thinking of the same group you're referring to, in Kansas) are thoroughly ostrisized and condemned publicly across the nation. They are a cult at best and aren't anymore Christian than Free Masons are.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

question that i am genuinely curious about:

you seem to have no love for islam. your prerogative. what if watchmen took exactly the same kind of cheap shots at islam? take a moment to consider your reaction. honestly, would you be at all offended or would you delight in it?

and if in your heart of hearts, you would be tickled, then realize, there are plenty of folks out there that would feel the same way when christianity gets taken down a peg.

jinAgain, Jin...I believe you're still missing my point. The Passion of the Christ was never aimed toward a group, like a weapon, to to spitefully and purposefully insult another group. Hollywood does, though, attempt to do that with entire movies or in cases like this, it's veiled under the guise of an action film. You think you're going to watch a comic book adaptation with some impressive VFX...but low and behold some script writer, with the blessings of the director, say's "you know what....just for the sport of it, let's use this sex scene to really stick it in the eye of any of those damn right-wing Christians who may be watching!"

It's one thing to say something at a party that happens to come across as offensive. It's another to turn to someone there and say "You know what, you're a piece of F'ing garbage!"
One is offended. The other is verbally assaulted. You can call it semantics, but there's a clear difference here too, and you know it.

Hypothetically speaking....I doubt Hollywood has the guts to pick a fight with or antagonize Muslims the way they routinely do Christians or Conservatives...but IF they were to take a cheap shot at Islam, I'd be shocked first and foremost. But I would still have to ask "Why does this belong here?" Maybe a Chuck Norris vs Bin Laden flick, ok...but here?

The script writers and director intended to insult in a very hurtful way. It's not the offense I'm really concerned about...it's the "Why do it in the first place?" Why is it used here? You expect as much from Michael Moore or Quinton Tarintino....but a comic book film? I think it's because they want to use the disguise of this movie genre to reach a much broader and unsuspecting audience than just the die-hard liberal crowd...and they know they are merely singing to the choir with Tarintino and M. Moore films.

Oliver Stone also makes movies that are intended to be controversial, but you know his left wing socialist views going in, so you can, as you say, "Vote with your Pocketbook"....which I do.

jin choung
03-10-2009, 08:47 PM
Again, Jin...I believe you're still missing my point. The Passion of the Christ was never aimed toward a group, like a weapon, to to spitefully and purposefully insult another group.

i disagree with that point. the interpretation of what was intended is very much in the eye of the beholder. many jews (who have been mass murdered on the basis of what TPOTC's points were) would claim to have been every bit as deliberately and spitefully targeted. especially in context of gibson's dad's history.

and an inability to admit that is simply an inability to step into someone else's shoes. seriously, they felt spitefully targeted. they really did.

again, i don't see the persecution you see in the watchmen. the song was an innocuous joke. the guy is the movie's equivalent of a hopeless geek whom fortune smiled on in such a way that this hot chick is impaling herself on his crotch. (also, he finally got it up which is a not so subtle commentary on his re-engaging in life).

hallelujah indeed! (a variant of the handel musical piece "HALLELUJAH!" being used in jokes everywhere. i saw it as no more offensive as that)

and as with islam (in their move in the un), christianity deserves no special consideration. it deserves no automatic respect. neither does ANY religion.

if someone has a problem with it and someone wants to voice it in film, i think that's just dandy. as i say, christianity has legitimately earned the enmity of many.

at that point, you just choose not to go. but again, as we've been saying, you were blindsided here so i understand if you were surprised by the perceived assault. but watchmen was not ever a typical superhero story... from comicbook to film.

jin

AbnRanger
03-10-2009, 08:55 PM
it seems to me that you have somewhat of a persecution complex going on.... but let's take it at face value. that christians are being slapped and targeted.

one thing i don't get.

jesus SAID you would be hated. he said this is NOT your world. he said that you don't belong here (that your home is elsewhere) and you will not be welcome "in this world".

so the thing i don't get is that you're complaining about how christians are treated. as if it was somehow shocking.

i mean... your boss gave you pretty fair warning! didn't he?

jinIt's funny you bring this up. I'm not surprised at offense. That's why I don't get stupid crazy and set Hummers on fire (to save the planet from those dastardly gas-guzzling monsters), and place "Impeach Obama!" stickers on my bumper. :D

I'm merely pointing out how tacky and classless it is to hijack a comic book and use it to make a few drive-by passes at Christians who may be in the audience.
It also doesn't surprise me that you're trying to fault with me for noticing the ridiculousness of it, instead of acknowledging the fact that it was totally out of place and uncalled for...since you share similar feelings

jin choung
03-10-2009, 09:02 PM
It also doesn't surprise me that you're trying to fault with me for noticing the ridiculousness of it, instead of acknowledging the fact that it was totally out of place and uncalled for...since you share similar feelings

i'm not trying to fault you for the ridiculousness of it. as i said before, if it exists, it's bad because it is not integral to the story. it is bad for ARTISTIC (or lack thereof) reasons, not because of the message.

regarding the message, christianity is fair game. as it should be. as i've argued. and as i've said, they have lots of legitimate enemies.

but more than anything, in a movie filled with a lot not to like, i just didn't see it.

jin

Chris S. (Fez)
03-10-2009, 09:09 PM
and as abnranger demonstrates, nobody likes their belief system slapped. so again, i think the un move is driven by people who don't like getting slapped and just aren't thinking things through.
jin

Indeed. As I mentioned before I think many moderate Muslims and liberals "with the best intentions are unwittingly undermining democracy."

It is like locking a beloved pet in a box for its protection, only to have it smother. I can only hope that "offended" Muslims and the politically correct liberals who accomodate them do not fully grasp what these lawsuits are doing to democracy.

However, when I see so many Muslims systematically appealing to the passionate, open-minded left by accusing anyone who questions their ideology with bigotry or racism, well, I have to wonder how calculated their cause is.

jin choung
03-10-2009, 09:11 PM
I'm merely pointing out how tacky and classless it is to hijack a comic book and use it to make a few drive-by passes at Christians who may be in the audience.

again, if you look at the comic book from which the movie is derived from, you'll see that it's not a "comic book movie" as you see those things to be.

you were blindsided and for that, you can legitimately blame the ad campaign... though you could blame yourself a little too for not reading any reviews/previews.

jin

AbnRanger
03-10-2009, 09:18 PM
i disagree with that point. the interpretation of what was intended is very much in the eye of the beholder. many jews (who have been mass murdered on the basis of what TPOTC's points were) would claim to have been every bit as deliberately and spitefully targeted. especially in context of gibson's dad's history...
jinI stated in a previous post that I acknowledged some elements (noticed long after the movie was aired) were probably unwarranted. But the movie itself is merely another re-enactment of the Passion...a box office version of the same re-enactments of the event every Easter. They know it's a film largely for Christian consumption.

Just because some wrongly used it as justification for violence hundreds of years ago (although the New Testament gives no such justification for Jewish persecution whatsoever...the Apotstle Paul even devoted an entire chapter in the book of Romans addressing the topic of refraining from lashing out against them, and instead to love them, since it was through them the scriptures and Christ Himself came) doesn't mean it's being used today for the same purposes.

In fact, despite this major theological difference, Christians today are THE largest and most staunch supporters of Israel and Jews everywhere. I don't see how you can use the movie as a whole as an example of Christians trying to stick their finger in the eye of the same people they stand up for against the rest of the world.
Use another example...that's not a good one

AbnRanger
03-10-2009, 09:19 PM
again, if you look at the comic book from which the movie is derived from, you'll see that it's not a "comic book movie" as you see those things to be.

you were blindsided and for that, you can legitimately blame the ad campaign... though you could blame yourself a little too for not reading any reviews/previews.

jinYou got me there...I'll admit to that

AbnRanger
03-10-2009, 09:40 PM
so is there in christianity. do you deny that?

jesus said he didn't come to bring harmony but a sword. to turn father against son and daughter against mother.

there are a lot of inconvenient verses in the bible as well.

and included in the bible is wholesale God condoned genocide to the last man woman and child.

if you have a problem with islam, i hope for consistencies sake you have a problem with christianity and judaism as well.

jinSo Christians worldwide and AlQuaida are one in the same, huh? You see any Christian Terrorist videos of beheading Liberals, lately?
There are Hundreds of millions of Muslims in the world that would celebrate and pass out sweets at the sight of seeing Jin beheaded for 1) being an Infidel 2) being a Westerner 3) being a Prolific Purveyor of Porn
...seriously...they would.
The next time you go on a vacation to Pakistan, you might want to leave the Hustler mag at home

Can you honestly say with a straight face that you believe Christians would like the same fate for you?
The quote you used was a clear use of hyperbole just as it was with the quote about gouging an eye out if it causes you to sin. Nowhere do you see examples of people following those orders literally. You know that.
Those passages are quite related to one another. The message is "let nothing stand between you and your relationship with God." The sword is a clear reference to severing family ties (that's what the sword represents) if that is what it takes...not limbs. Today that is exactly what takes place when a Jew places their faith in Christ...or a Muslim does the same. They are cut often "cut off/disowned" from the family.

You can't make the same case for Mohammad's reference to "killing Infidels wherever you find them" or "those who abandon Isalm, kill them." Those are very clear and explicit directives...and cannot be construed as symbolic. The context of those commands does not support that claim.

jin choung
03-10-2009, 10:18 PM
So Christians worldwide and AlQuaida are one in the same, huh?

no. and neither is alquaeda one and the same with the majority of the muslim population. you do understand that don't you?


Can you honestly say with a straight face that you believe Christians would like the same fate for you?

no. because i'm straight.

just as there are extremists dressed in "christian clothing" who would INDEED attack and kill homosexuals, there are those dressed in "the clothing of islam" that do things that most of them don't approve of.


The quote you used was a clear use of hyperbole just as it was with the quote about gouging an eye out if it causes you to sin. Nowhere do you see examples of people following those orders literally. You know that.

no i don't.

one man's hyperbole is another man's command. there have indeed been christians who have variously chopped off, gouged out and burned off offending members throughout history.

you say "clearly" but there's nothing clear about it. (just ask those saints who bade farewell to body parts). in context, there is nothing in the text itself that suggests symbolism of the gouging. same as the passages from islam.

(as for the sword - that was clearly symbolic and i intended that reading as well. but the point was father against son, mother against daughter... these are inconvenient verses that "family friendly" religion don't like to talk about)


You can't make the same case for Mohammad's reference to killing Infidels wherever you find them or those who leave Isalm, kill them. Those are very clear and explicit directives...and cannot be construed as symbolic. The context of those commands does not support that claim.

yes you can. as i said, there are lots of problematic verses in the bible (old and new testament) that indicate NOWHERE that it is meant to be read NON LITERALLY. lots of them having to do with killing various folks for various things.

and there are other verses in the quran that talk about living at peace with those who don't believe as you do.

just like the christian tradition, there are lots of verses that contradict other ones. and they're every bit as slippery about how you reconcile those contradictions as christians are.... : )

so you get back to me on your take on the quran after you finish taking a theology course on it ok?

but modern christians simply attribute the "symbolic reading" out of convenience. again, there is nothing in the text to suggest it. just as there is nothing in the text of genesis to suggest that it is meant to be symbolic.

those who take such things as symbolic are doing it out of expedience and CONVENIENCE.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

also, islam is a YOUNG religion relatively speaking. christianity has had some time to mellow a bit. not enough to my liking yet but still, it has and in particular, it has grown wise enough to suss itself out of theocratic rule. judaism has had a bit more time to mellow and they even have arabic members in their ruling body knesset.

there have been extremists of the christian faith in history (as there are still today) who did things that would make al qaeda blush. just because you don't see them in today's news doesn't mean diddly. christianity owns a great deal of barbarism.

you see a lot of flaws in islam now, fine. but as time passes, the literal conveniently becomes the symbolic and barbarism and extremism driven by being "the new guy" starts to mellow with self confidence.

if you take the historical view especially, there's not a lot that separates the religions in their deeds and the deeds done by their most extreme members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

america is a land where no idea is safe. be it islam or christianity or evolution or whatever. this is RIGHT AND GOOD. this is the abrasion that sands off all the sharp nasty corners from them. this is the stone upon which these ideas are beaten and broken and tested.

and you don't like islam. many in this country don't like what you believe in either.

deal with it.

there is a poetic justice there that i tend to appreciate as well.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

and in conclusion, what i say to all religious - if your God is God, you have nothing to fear. chill the f out. welcome the stones and the tests. by definition, you will win.

if your God is God.

jin

p.s. passion of the christ is a great example. mel gibson's dad wouldn't be none too keen on defending israel in anything.

aidenvfx
03-11-2009, 12:05 AM
I think seeing daily beheadings and children being targeted (not collateral damage from an airstrike on terrorists hiding in civilian populations) by suicide bombers DAILY...exploiting women to conduct some of those...had more to do with villifiying themselves. Moreso than the world slowly waking up to the barbaric nature of a large portion of the muslim world. Can't blame a cartoon artist for that. Sorry.
How many Christians do you see on the news beheading "Infidels?"

None but I have watched a number of priests get away with raping kids.

Also I went to the "Watchmen" tonight and what scene are you even talking about that was an attack against Catholics?

AbnRanger
03-11-2009, 12:33 AM
You say there is no context that indicates it was hyperbole, aye?
So, later, when He state's "I am the Vine and you are the Branches..." He's literally saying He is a grapevine and not a human?

Jin, you haven't read it so stop pretending you even have a clue what you're talking about in this area. Just admit you don't...you're not a subject matter expert about everything, as you want everyone to believe.

I've not mastered Maya (don't intend to either), so in a debate about its merits, I realize that I'm not in a position to speak with any level of authority on the matter. Someone who comes along who really does know Maya well will make me look stupid if I push matters like you are here.

Pretending to know subject matter of Biblical nature is going to make you look silly if you must keep up this facade. In order to hide your ignorance on the subject, you try to through up a bunch of flares full of nonsensical comments ...hoping your opponent will grow frustrated and weary of it and back off. The comments about Mel Gibson's father is one of them. Has no bearing on the issue at hand.
I love how folks like yourself try to lump the two dimetrically opposed groups together by acting like there are Christian terror groups out there...get real for once. You embrace the one who wants to de-capitate you, and spit in the face of the ones who are in favor of defending you and your right to spit. Makes perfect sense to you, huh?

As Fez stated, there are entire countries that would have you executed for your current lifestyle. Think about that for a moment. So, where are the Christian equivalents? All you can do is point back to isolated occurances hundreds of years ago (and did so in blatant violation of clear biblical teaching) for your equivalents? Shows how twisted your thinking really is.

Muslim crazies...they beheaded back then an more so today. Were are not talking one or two fringe groups as you pretend. It's estimated that over a third to once half of the 1 billion adherents follow this form of teaching. What if that were the case with these "fringe" Christian terrorist groups you've conjured up. California would be a war zone like Iraq if that were the case. Fresh liberal targets, prime pickens for your Christian version of Jihad, right?

AbnRanger
03-11-2009, 01:04 AM
None but I have watched a number of priests get away with raping kids.

Also I went to the "Watchmen" tonight and what scene are you even talking about that was an attack against Catholics?I didn't say it was an attack on Catholics.

Show me where I said that? So, because a few bad apples (Jesus said there would be tares among the wheat), that gives you justification to equate us with HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS...entire countries of radical muslims who believe women have no more rights than a dog. Who believe anyone who abandons Islam should be publically executed. Even in Saudi Arabia, I saw how women were treated. They can't even go out in public by themselves. This is just the "peaceful" Islamic cultures you are talking about. The radicals are more numerous than you are willing to admit, and I'm really surprised that the very people they abhor the most are the same ones here defending them as just a few small groups of misunderstood people...yeah right

jin choung
03-11-2009, 01:29 AM
Jin, you haven't read it so stop pretending you even have a clue what you're talking about in this area. Just admit you don't...you're not a subject matter expert about everything, as you want everyone to believe.

you don't know me.

further, i've read the entire bible from cover to cover. even the ludicrously boring stuff about someone begatting someone else and the measurement of the temple in cubits. can you say the same?

i have read it and i've probably forgotten more than you know. i have asked questions you've probably not even thought to ask.

if you think i know some stuff in other areas, believe me, much of it pales in comparison to theology. seriously, you don't know me. and i can whup most devoted christians in a theological debate without breaking a sweat.

jin

jin choung
03-11-2009, 01:42 AM
So, because a few bad apples (Jesus said there would be tares among the wheat), that gives you justification to equate us with HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS...entire countries of radical muslims who believe women have no more rights than a dog. Who believe anyone who abandons Islam should be publically executed. Even in Saudi Arabia, I saw how women were treated. They can't even go out in public by themselves. This is just the "peaceful" Islamic cultures you are talking about. The radicals are more numerous than you are willing to admit, and I'm really surprised that the very people they abhor the most are the same ones here defending them as just a few small groups of misunderstood people...yeah right


it's comical that you equate all the "bad christians" to a few bad apples but islam is just plain bad. i just genuinely find that funny. and that you do that with a straight face! without seeing the irony in it. at all... wow.

you've said a lot of bad things about what muslims believe and do. if you go through history, you think you can't create an even greater list of shameful deeds done in the name of the christian God?

as i said, islam is a relatively young religion. christianity is as inoffensive as it is because it's had time to mellow.

if we go back a bit to christianity's younger days, i can point you to lots of atrocities and abhorrent behavior too. don't even have to go very far. segregation, miscegenation, holocaust, slavery, genocide of an entire people whose presence on "our" continent was inconvenient... all perpetrated by those who claimed the christian God and fequently done in his name.

it's not limited to a "few bad apples". L.. O.. L...

seriously... you're sooooooo biased, you're soooooooo rooting for your side, that you just can't see the pot calling the kettle black.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

anyway, i just want you to know that as much as you dislike islam, there are as many people if not more who have the exact same amount of dislike for your faith.

just realize that YOUR faith, has many enemies too.

poetic justice.

so if you're totally cool with bashing other religions, you gotta know that many people ain't gonna have much sympathy with you complaining about yours gettin' smacked.

jin

DiedonD
03-11-2009, 02:41 AM
Well, here are my attempts at calming this thread down before someone comes and says that it has outsorced its usefulness!

I kinda think that am at a great position to do that from start! My country is somewhat shallow in Muslim religion, and was helped by predominantly Christian and Catholic countries. Then to add more to the complexity, Im not religious at all, and consider it as a cynicall attempts at achieving the usual polytical goals.

So am in the middle of it all, and dont take part in any of it.

So then, Saudi Arabia is a religious governed country! Religion is law there! Simple! And a religion gets prouder the older it is! So you have old laws there! And though youd expect people to be angelic, accordiing to the McMafia book, that Im reading, the place is an example for corruption!

But other countries do warry from it! Now I havent went to those other countries, appart from Dubai in UAE, and I gotta say that, youd be surprized there really!

In any case, I have a friend who is VERY religious compared to the most. And the way he treats his wife, makes the rest of our wifes so jealous, that you think 'Oh what else must I learn in treating my wife now!!'.

Theres always an 'elevation' in women treatment when we all go out to a alchoholic drink having restaurant (unthinkable in lets say in Saudi Arabia) and when he treats her like a Godess, I always get that look from my wife 'You never do that to me :devil:'

So, Im sure that there are some insecurities at stake here. I know Chris has those feelings, and in your case Don, Im kinda just using my imagination here, but Im thinking perhaps youre hearing stuff of your army coleagues in Avganistan? Or other places, and those are the cause for concern! But generalizing never works my friends :) If anything, the only somewhat formula that you can apply to people in any behavior, is that there is a minority in two extreemes, but the majority is in the middle of them both somewhere!

Now, how on earth can religion derrive from a movie thread! I havent seen the movie, but you guys are making it a MUST! And to add more to the question, how can it derrive from a SF Comic book originated one?!

Exception
03-11-2009, 03:34 AM
<snip> Those damn Christians! They must be taken down for this! :D

Please quote me saying this before you jump to conclusions.


So, you're one of those that believes the Holocaust during WWII was also proganda. Go have a hot cup of coffee (caffeinated this time), and wake up to the world around you, friend.

Ok. So, this is
1) Fabricating things I did not say
2) Drawing completely irrelevant and slanderous conclusions
3) Not understanding what I said in the slightest
4) Patronizing and insulting.

Are you out of your mind to talk like this to peers on a forum?

You might want to read my posts again, and realize at no point did I say anything negative about Christianity or Christians in general, I only made the point that Islam is vilified as much or worse than Christianity, which your and others' posts help to prove very nicely. Then you might want to consider apologizing. Where do I say anything about defending any crime at any point in the world, especially something as utterly horrifying, shocking and debasing humankind such as the Holocaust? Where do I say this??!! Your kind of vile insulting and corrupted argumentation lies at the very foundation of hatred between people across the world. Do you understand what you just said to me, its insinuations and implications? Do you have ANY idea?!

I could shrug this off like yet another insensitive dumb internet discussion, but what you just said is so corrupted, I have trouble wrapping my head around such unbelievable leaps in logic, such amazing willingness to paint black whoever does not agree with you, and to just fabricate complete and utter nonsense from the darkest regions of your brain. I won't let that slide.

shrox
03-11-2009, 04:01 AM
Once again, Ishmael or Issac, choose one.

DiedonD
03-11-2009, 04:05 AM
Jacob, Jack, or Jak spelled Yak here

cagey5
03-11-2009, 04:06 AM
Once again, Ishmael or Issac, choose one.

or neither..

jin choung
03-11-2009, 04:46 AM
Once again, Ishmael or Issac, choose one.

haha... what about none of the above?

actually, you bring up an interesting point though... it's the Christian God that promised to make the sons of Ishmael into a great nation of peoples as well and delivered on it so it seems to me that if you got a problem with Islam, you know precisely Who to blame on that one too.

Jin

jin choung
03-11-2009, 04:52 AM
All religion is stupid. I don't discriminate :)


you better not be talking about the cult of the emperor... his beacon is the only thing that makes astrogation possible and keeps the enemies of man from overrunning the imperium after all.

Jin

shrox
03-11-2009, 04:56 AM
Yes, the source of the animosity is whether Issac or Ishmael is the proper son of Abraham. I would say Issac, because he was the child of Abraham and his wife Sarah, while Ishmael was born to Hagar, a servant to Abraham and Sarah. Sarah could not conceive, so she got Abraham drunk, then Hagar posed as Sarah, and Abraham slept with Hagar, thinking she was Sarah. Then, shortly afterwards, Sarah did get pregnant by Abraham. So again, I would say Issac is the "proper" son of Abraham.

AbnRanger
03-11-2009, 04:58 AM
it's comical that you equate all the "bad christians" to a few bad apples but islam is just plain bad. i just genuinely find that funny. and that you do that with a straight face! without seeing the irony in it. at all... wow.

you've said a lot of bad things about what muslims believe and do. if you go through history, you think you can't create an even greater list of shameful deeds done in the name of the christian God?

as i said, islam is a relatively young religion. christianity is as inoffensive as it is because it's had time to mellow.

if we go back a bit to christianity's younger days, i can point you to lots of atrocities and abhorrent behavior too. don't even have to go very far. segregation, miscegenation, holocaust, slavery, genocide of an entire people whose presence on "our" continent was inconvenient... all perpetrated by those who claimed the christian God and fequently done in his name.

it's not limited to a "few bad apples". L.. O.. L...

seriously... you're sooooooo biased, you're soooooooo rooting for your side, that you just can't see the pot calling the kettle black.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

anyway, i just want you to know that as much as you dislike islam, there are as many people if not more who have the exact same amount of dislike for your faith.

just realize that YOUR faith, has many enemies too.

poetic justice.

so if you're totally cool with bashing other religions, you gotta know that many people ain't gonna have much sympathy with you complaining about yours gettin' smacked.

jinHell no you don't...No way are you going to pin slavery and the Holocaust of the Christian faith. Hitler wasn't a Christian in any sense of the word. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a priest who was involved in the german resistance to bring Hitler down from within. He saw Hitler for who he was...pure evil. The greatest of his generation. It cost him his life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietrich_Bonhoeffer

Why do you insist on coming on here and just throwing ridiculous statements around and seeing which one sticks? Your reasoning is like someone calling your mother a prostitute and when asked what facts they have to prove it, they toss up something lame like " obviously she slept around...since she had you." Like that proves anything. Neither does your reasoning.
Just as you have an extremely liberal denomination sanctioning gay priests, that doesn't mean the Church is a homosexual organization. It's a subject of immense contention. Just as slavery was. There were those who tried to justify it based on the fact that there were slaves during Bibilical times (although slavery in the Biblical era was not necessarily the type of slavery of a few hundred years ago...in the Hebrew culture is was serving to pay off a debt, not altogether different than being a "Slave to the Debtors" today...and irregardless of how much was owed, slaves were to be set free after 7yrs....that's where we get our current practice of debts being cleared from the record after 7yrs from). The problem with that skewed argument was that African slaves didn't owe anyone here a debt. They used just as ridiculous reasoning as you do here. Funny you never mention the church being the driving force behind the abolishionist movement in the North. But that wouldn't be convenient to your warped position.
http://www.jubilee-centre.org/document.php?id=51
...it's roots began 200yrs ago with Evangelical Christians like William Wilberforce, a member of British parliment who fought his entire career to see slavery abolished....against overwhelming odds, he lived long enough to see it achieved in 1807...well before our civil war.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KLyEwv0dG8&feature=related
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/wilberforce_william.shtml


Again...you resort to tossing up a blitz of absurd comments with no facts to support them. Since you can't distinguish when someone makes a clearly figurative statement ("I am the Good Shepherd, and my sheep know my voice"...."by their fruit you shall know them"...."do not cast your pearls among the swine") and when one gives a clear literal directive (My command is this: love each other as I have loved you), then you haven't shredded anyone. You're merely a legend in your own mind, Jin.

shrox
03-11-2009, 04:59 AM
All religion is stupid. I don't discriminate :)

This thread is stupid as well.

And I'm stupid for posting in it.

I am not stupid. Please stop saying that I am stupid for knowing something that you do not. And how about changing your sig to something less arrogant. And don't call yourself stupid because you are not stupid.

Exception
03-11-2009, 05:09 AM
In predominantly christian countries there is more demonizing of muslims, in predominantly muslim countries it's the other way round. Who's right, then?

I'm not sure if it's about right or wrong. But observing this forum is well vested in the western, predominantly christian society, it's not neutral in its own right, hence the observation that *here* islam is villified as much or more so than christianity... but my point wasn't to 'prove' that this is so... it was in response to someone exclaiming that christianity is being vilified in the film, my mere response was, well... christianity isn't the only one.
And I could make the argument that gays are vilified more than christians still, unfortunately, and so are perhaps other groups of people that share a common trait.


The thing that troubles me is that fundamentalism seems to be on the rise regardless of religion (and even some atheists in the game). Force and Counterforce.

I very much agree with you. fundamentalism on every front. Fundamentalist neo-classical economy, has made place for fundamentalist social economics. Fundamentalist conservatism is bouncing up against fundamentalist liberalism, and we can go on like that. The world is polarizing, which is really a shame to see. One would predict that globalization would generate a common denominator and breed at least an ounce of understanding. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the case with a fair share of humanity.

Thena agin, I might just be getting older and realizing what the world actually is... rather than it increasingly becoming fundamentalist... it's an option worth considering.

Exception
03-11-2009, 05:24 AM
Why do you insist on coming on here and just throwing ridiculous statements around and seeing which one sticks?

Wait... what?!
That coming from someone who's accusing me of holocaust denial?!
And then has the nerve to ignore my response... Brilliant!



You toss out a blitz of absurd comments with no facts to support them.

Uh...
This is getting more hilarious every time.
At the same time both words and logic fail.

shrox
03-11-2009, 05:43 AM
Nope, this thread didn't get better while I was out grabbin' stuff for lunch.

Around and around it goes, where it stops nobody knows :)

Lunch! Slacker, I was working! (and posting...)

Exception
03-11-2009, 06:32 AM
Lunch! Slacker, I was working! (and posting...)

Since this thing is going absolutely nowhere, I might as well completely go off topic...

How's it going at work, do you like the job? Are you able to make ends meet now? What are ayou working on?

AbnRanger
03-11-2009, 06:45 AM
Guys, I apologize for getting so far off topic. My intent was merely to point out that a few parts did as this thread has, and veered away from the topic of the movie. It wasn't "I was offended"....there's plenty in Hollywood or on the tube to be offended about, so I try (don't always succeed) to overlook it.
The parts in question just was not the place or time to launch a salvo at anyone.
I'm so done with this thread...wasted way too much time on it already.

shrox
03-11-2009, 06:57 AM
Since this thing is going absolutely nowhere, I might as well completely go off topic...

How's it going at work, do you like the job? Are you able to make ends meet now? What are ayou working on?

I am getting along, I always want more of course...I negotiated a raise after displaying my skills, might even give me a car, something tiny I imagine, but with the narrow streets and limited parking, that would be fine. We are working on the first 3D stereographic film make in the UK. The story is that Germany and the Allies came to a truce, and now it's the year 2084. Very steampunk in it's look.

DiedonD
03-11-2009, 07:00 AM
@ Don

Oh it happens. We all have our bad days ;)

Exception
03-11-2009, 08:22 AM
I am getting along, I always want more of course...I negotiated a raise after displaying my skills, might even give me a car, something tiny I imagine, but with the narrow streets and limited parking, that would be fine. We are working on the first 3D stereographic film make in the UK. The story is that Germany and the Allies came to a truce, and now it's the year 2084. Very steampunk in it's look.

Hey, try a nice bicycle... keeps you healthy, saves you a bundle, and much faster in the city... ha... get a raincoat too ;) I have not driven my car so long, last time I tried it wouldn't start.
I look forward to the film, when will it be released?



Oh it happens. We all have our bad days

When is the last time you accused anyone out of nowhere of denying the holocaust? Must get to a pretty bad state of day for that to happen, I'm sure :)

DiedonD
03-11-2009, 08:37 AM
When is the last time you accused anyone out of nowhere of denying the holocaust? Must get to a pretty bad state of day for that to happen, I'm sure :)

You mean, I hurried too much, and shouldve left you to embrace that open apology there, instead of closing the matter all to soon like that.

And youre right, I hurry alot these days! And shuoldnt have done it! You two were in that conflict, and I had a few attempts at opening a post that related to you two, in an effort to calm you guys down! Thoguht it was none of mine and left you to it! Only for those build up attempts to reapear like that later on with that post!

But you can still say anything that you mightve wanted to say. Just nevermind me there. Was just trying to put an end to it, apparently too soon, sorry.

But hot things happening in real life see :), So Im kinda overexcited, thus hurry alot like that!

To answer youre question though. No, I dont get accused of that very often, no, none at all!

The most I get is, somekinda unwillingness to accept that things that relate to (but are in noway near its size) holocaust have happened here aswell, and should be embraced like an historic fact, and not be forgotten, so as we can move on to better days, and do our best for it not to ever happen again!

But even that I think has passed its phaze, and its largely accepted now.

Exception
03-11-2009, 08:55 AM
Was just trying to put an end to it, apparently too soon, sorry.

Hey, no apology necessary, I didn't mean to say you did anything unwanted.

:beerchug:

jin choung
03-11-2009, 10:59 AM
Hell no you don't...No way are you going to pin slavery and the Holocaust of the Christian faith. Hitler wasn't a Christian in any sense of the word.

sigh....

and bin laden is islamic in any sense of THAT word? LOL.... hahahahahaha. sigh....

and you are as imprecise with your objections as you are in your statements. read what i say - i talk about deeds done "in his name". as you talk about deeds done in the name of islam.

you sure do cut a lot of breaks for your side that you don't cut for the folks on the islamic side. don't you see that at all? it's so plain to me that it's comical.

you think a muslim can't go back and talk about the magnanimous works of "real muslims" in the exact same vein as your post?

EVERY defense of an EXCEPTION you make for christianity, i can make the EXACT SAME EXAMPLE FOR ISLAM. EVERY disownment of a "bad christian" you make for christianity, i can make of a "bad muslim" on the side of islam. every attack you make against islam, i can make the exact same kind of attack against christianity. and every negative example you cite i can cite one right back at you.

we can go point for point all day long.

pfffft.

you're soooooooo eager to overlook the bad things done in the name of your God and claim "oh, they're not really christian", and then you bring out the examples of the "good ones" and yet you can't see that you're denying that kind of benefit of the doubt excuse making for the other side.

sigh.

your reasoning and statements are sloppy, imprecise and frankly biased.

as i say, christianity has legitimate enemies in this world. from hollywood to the middle east.

you're not helping.

jin

p.s. as for making ludicrous claims and seeing which ones stick, i can say the same for your personal attacks on me. keep calling someone ignorant until he says something like he's read the bible cover to cover in which case you back off on that one. btw, i ask you again, have YOU read the whole bible?

firstsingle
03-11-2009, 12:35 PM
Never read the comic but, I enjoyed the movie. Lops of butt kicking I tell ya. Loooong but it's ok. Overall, pretty good.

Why is the original creator soo darn angry? Maybe if someone doesn't want you to touch their work, it should be left alone. 300 was awesome to me. Better performances and a better written script. To me!

mattclary
03-11-2009, 01:21 PM
miscegenation

jin

You sure that's the word you meant to choose? lol

PointC
03-11-2009, 01:38 PM
Wow. I finally saw the movie so I thought I'd stop back to this thread. This sure went off the rails didn't it? I think I'll head back over to the Core forum where it's safe and I won't get hit with any flying chairs. :eek:

Kuzey
03-11-2009, 03:37 PM
Please just address the articles. You can start by explaining why you think them "petty".

I will say it again: it is NOT my view you should be concerned about but the view of "extremist" Muslims who are leveraging legitimate Islamic doctrine and "moderate" Muslims who are suing all across the West for being "offended."


Ah...know I see it. You don't want your Western society/culture to evolve, to develop, become better richer with new cultures/ideas coming in. You think it's perfect now and are scared that the Muslim invasion is going to change that for the worst...I get ya Know.

Then, maybe those African-American Civil Rights Movement shouldn't have made all that fuss back then. I mean the society was perfect as it was, now we have an end to slavery, equal rights (kinda, but still more work needed) and not to mention a Black president. Oh how bad does the USA have it, I feel so sorry for those white folks :hey:

What you should be worried about is not the "extremist" Muslims but those "extremist" Normal folks who hate change and like to attack people because they might be different in some way.



I limited myself to yesterday's news articles to make a point that every day offers more evidence that Islam is not the religion of peace and tolerance that you and politically correct people think it is. The way YOU see and practice Islam is almost certainly peaceful, but there are countless elements of Islam from scholarly sources that are sexist, supremist and violent. Do you deny this?


Actually, the way I practice Islam is not peaceful at all. Every Friday I sacrifice a Christian and a Jew every second month :hey:

"almost certainly peaceful"....what the kinda crap statement is that...that reeks of well.........you know.

As for the last part of that statement. Can you tell me how many times a female rape victim anywhere in a Western society has won a court case by just her say so and no actual witnesses to the event. You seem to make it sound like this only happens in Islam and it happens everywhere.



Here is an example of "racism" from the article:

He says the first racist incident came in early 2006. He claims he was in a van with seven PCs and three 'tutor' constables - including one other Muslim - which stopped for food at a shop which did not sell halal products. When he asked if they were stopping anywhere else, he was told: 'This is it.'

He was made uncomfortable and who knows what other things happened that he is ashamed to make known because he has his dignity.



Islam is an ideology, not a race. Just because his colleagues did not cater to his request for halal products does NOT make them racist. Would I personally have made another stop to accomodate my Muslim colleague? Of course! But should this accomodation be mandatory?

Islam is made up of many races and you forgot to mentions they called him by racist name???

That is the point. Just because the police were not "friendly and sensitive" does not make them criminals.





From the article, please note the sense of entitlement:

"I should have been the preferred candidate because they said they encouraged applications from people from ethnic minorities and with disabilities."

It is NOT discrimination to NOT hire someone you feel is not best suited to the job. Unfortunately, in the UK the precedent has already been set: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7457794.stm

Muslim woman awarded £4,000 damages for "injury to feelings"


Well he thought so and if that did say they were looking for people from "ethnic minorities and with disabilities" then he might have a case he can win. It's not up to you to like it, but if a court awards in his favor then that means he was right and if it doesn't it means he was wrong. The only way to find out is if he tried, just like those brave Black Americans of the civil movement. Like it or not society changes all the time, get with it already.




Afghans are following Islamic Shariah law, a sexist, supremist, violent Islamic theocracy. The results speak for themselves. Shariah law is simply not compatible with democracy.

You seem convinced Islam has no part in the ongoing barbarity in Shariah compliant communities in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Please enlighten me:

1) What is the penalty for being homosexual under Shariah law?

2) What is the penalty for converting from Islam to Christianity under Shariah law?

3) Under Shariah law, is a woman's testimony equal to that of a man? How about rape trials in particular?

4) Under Shariah law, is a husband allowed under certain circumstances to physically harm his wife?




Ridiculous. Show me any evidence that I am "happy" that the USA resorted to "torture." The torture and prison scandals are a shameful stain on America.

Please simply address the articles and the issues at hand. The truth is uncomfortable and inconvenient and offensive at times.



There is no "resulting extremism." Islamic Shariah law IS extreme because it is sexist, supremist and violent. The Taliban themselves have expressed puzzlement over Obama's willingness to deal with "moderate" Taliban: http://in.reuters.com/article/email/idINIndia-38433020090310

"The Taliban are united, have one leader, one aim, one policy...I do not know why they are talking about moderate Taliban and what it means?"

Afghanistan is a democracy, it has an elected president...didn't you know?? What ever they choose they choose, democracy is democracy and not everyone will like the laws that it might have or not have...just bad luck. The only way to get change is to go to court and challenge it, just like the person in the wheelchair and the cop and the activity in the UN you stated earlier. If they win, then they were right and if they don't...they tried and was heard in the process. Looks like you don't want them to be seen or heard at all.

End of transmission.

Kuzey

BeeVee
03-11-2009, 03:52 PM
Back to Watchmen I say. Here is the marquee from a cinema in Seattle:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3621/3342219689_2d6279f8dd.jpg?v=0

B

jin choung
03-11-2009, 05:35 PM
You sure that's the word you meant to choose? lol

yeah... meant miscegenation laws though....

jin

Exception
03-11-2009, 05:56 PM
Back to Watchmen I say. Here is the marquee from a cinema in Seattle:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3621/3342219689_2d6279f8dd.jpg?v=0

B

What if you don't bring a squid?!
I'm scared.

IgnusFast
03-11-2009, 07:12 PM
Back to Watchmen I say. Here is the marquee from a cinema in Seattle:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3621/3342219689_2d6279f8dd.jpg?v=0

B

Okay, now THAT'S awesome. :)

LightWuv
03-11-2009, 10:06 PM
Back to Watchmen I say. Here is the marquee from a cinema in Seattle:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3621/3342219689_2d6279f8dd.jpg?v=0

B

LAWL!

I knew I forgot something that day!

I found Neverko's sig pretty interesting. Smells of futility though. :yingyang:

Chris S. (Fez)
03-11-2009, 10:33 PM
Ah...know I see it. You don't want your Western society/culture to evolve, to develop, become better richer with new cultures/ideas coming in. You think it's perfect now and are scared that the Muslim invasion is going to change that for the worst...I get ya Know.
Kuzey

No. I do not want my free society/culture to DEVOLVE by legitimizing Shariah in the name of multiculturalism and freedom of religion. Why did you not anwer a single question I posted about shariah law? I'll post them again for your convenience:

1) What is the penalty for being homosexual under Shariah law?

2) What is the penalty for converting from Islam to Christianity under Shariah law?

3) Under Shariah law, is a woman's testimony equal to that of a man? How about rape trials in particular?

4) Under Shariah law, is a husband allowed under certain circumstances to physically harm his wife?


Why do you insist on addressing me instead of the issues? Again, do you agree that there are aspects of Islam that are sexist, supremist and violent?



Then, maybe those African-American Civil Rights Movement shouldn't have made all that fuss back then. I mean the society was perfect as it was, now we have an end to slavery, equal rights (kinda, but still more work needed) and not to mention a Black president. Oh how bad does the USA have it, I feel so sorry for those white folks :hey:

Instead of addressing the issues honestly and openly you insinuate I am racist and hope it sticks. Islam is an IDEOLOGY. It is not racist or bigoted to be cautious of an ideology that is undeniably sexist, supremist and violent.



What you should be worried about is not the "extremist" Muslims but those "extremist" Normal folks who hate change and like to attack people because they might be different in some way.

Too often Muslims immigrate to free Western societies and use those freedoms to further Islam...at the expense of freedom. I believe passionately in freedom of speech, expression and the separation of church and state. A muslim prophet is your prophet only. Papers can and should be able to publish satirical cartoons and critical essays without fear of being prosecuted for blasphemy and/or "offending" Muslims.

Can you imagine if George Bush, with the countless unflattering caricatures of "W" portrayed in political cartoons, sued for being "offended"? Muslim nations in the UN are trying to do exactly that:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/02/a-free-speech-killer/
"Jordan prosecutor Hassan Abdullat subpoenaed "11 Danes for drawing and reprinting" cartoons that offend Islam."


Can you not see how granting special protective status to an ideology or a person (ie. your prophet) harms democracy?



Actually, the way I practice Islam is not peaceful at all. Every Friday I sacrifice a Christian and a Jew every second month :hey:

"almost certainly peaceful"....what the kinda crap statement is that...that reeks of well.........you know.

Muslims are overwhelmingly moderate. In my humble opinion, Islam itself is not and can never be truly moderate with verses like these in the Koran: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm



As for the last part of that statement. Can you tell me how many times a female rape victim anywhere in a Western society has won a court case by just her say so and no actual witnesses to the event. You seem to make it sound like this only happens in Islam and it happens everywhere.


So just to be absolutely clear, you are satisfied with how Shariah law treats the testimony of a female compared to the testimony of a male?



Like it or not society changes all the time

Exactly why we should ALL be cautious of an ideology that is sexist, supremist and violent.



Afghanistan is a democracy, it has an elected president...didn't you know?? What ever they choose they choose, democracy is democracy and not everyone will like the laws that it might have or not have...just bad luck.

A democracy completely undermined by Islam: http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Religion/?id=3.0.3085587696
"Kabul, 9 March (AKI) - Afghanistan's Supreme Court has upheld a 20-year jail term for blasphemy handed to Afghan journalist Sayed Parwez Kambakhsh, who claimed men and women were equal."

With rulings like this how can we not ALL be concerned that Islam is undermining Western society? Consider that virtually ALL modern moderate Muslim nations in the UN are trying to criminalize "defamation of religion": http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/2008/01/02/defamation-of-religion-becomes-un-resolution/



The only way to get change is to go to court and challenge it, just like the person in the wheelchair and the cop and the activity in the UN you stated earlier. If they win, then they were right

In the case mentioned above the Islamic government won their case against the defendent, who was found guilty of blasphemy: "The death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment following pressure from international human rights organisations."

By your logic "If they win, then they were right" should I assume you agree that the defendent is guilty of a crime?

Respectfully, please think for yourself. Re-read the Koran with an open mind. Just because you WANT to believe that Islam is purely a religion of peace and tolerance does not make it so.

jin choung
03-11-2009, 10:48 PM
Muslims are overwhelmingly moderate. In my humble opinion, Islam itself is not and can never be truly moderate with verses like these in the Koran: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm


if you read the verses that are quoted in that article, much of it can be taken figuratively in regards to the "good fight of the faith"....

and even for problematic verses, what of other verses that preach friendship:

http://www.islamicperspectives.com/Quran.htm

"Because of this acceptance, the Qur`an often addresses non-believers as non-believers, encourages them to follow faithfully the revelations that they were given (5:44, 46-47), and establishes rules for dealings with them (5:5).

All this provides an excellent basis for dialogue between believers and non-believers, through which believers can listen with sensitivity to non-believers and learn about their traditions, exploring where there is agreement but without ignoring important differences, especially those that relate to God’s unity and transcendence (3:64). As a result of such dialogue there can be cooperation on what is just and virtuous, but not on sinful causes (5:2).

The Qur`an also deals with relationships of the Muslims with the non-believers at the individual and collective levels. Unfortunately, many non-believers showed much hatred and enmity towards Islam and Muslims, throwing Muslims out of their homes (3:195), or making fun of their prayer and religion generally (5:57-58), and either waging war or kindling the flames of war between Muslims and some other non-believers (5:64) or by other subversive devices (3:72). Although at an individual level Muslims can have even such intimate relationship as that of marriage with those non-believers who are truly monotheists (5:5, 2:221, 5:72), Muslims are advised not to take hostile non-believers as allies against the purposes of Islam and the collective interests of the Muslim community (5:51, 57). Those non-believers who are not hostile are explicitly exempted from this advice (60:8) and even in case of hostile non-believers the Qur`an holds forth the hope that hostility will some day change to love: “It may be that God will generate love between you and those of them with whom you are now at enmity. God is capable (of all things); God is forgiving and merciful” (60:7)."

can't you find (with the help of google if nothing else) verses in the quran that preaches the opposite of violence?

in which case you get a situation that resembles apparently contradictory verses in the big three in general.

i mean, if you can find a single verse that contradicts unending violence against infidels, then you lose your argument. and it's just about contradictions in scripture which seems ubiquitous in all traditions.

right?

jin

Chris S. (Fez)
03-11-2009, 11:37 PM
i mean, if you can find a single verse that contradicts unending violence against infidels, then you lose your argument. and it's just about contradictions in scripture which seems ubiquitous in all traditions.

right?

jin

Hey Jin. I disagree. The Koran is filled with crazy contradictions. In my opinion it is not important how I personally interpret these passages but how some muslims interpret the passages...and whether those interpretations are reasonable and legitimized by Islamic doctrine/leaders/scholars.

Even if the Koran were not filled with calls for violence against nonbelievers I would still be passionately opposed to shariah because it is, please excuse the refrain, sexist and supremist.

In any case, I don't think relativism excuses the unseemly aspects of Islam (ie. Islam is peaceful compared to the old testament).

To me, the major religions ("the big three" at least) are all supremely strange mythologies. I compare Islam not to Christianity but to democratic ideals. Again, as far as I am concerned Christianity is no longer a realistic threat to secular society because anyone can say anything they want about Christianity without fear of bodily harm or legal prosecution.

Islam conversely is chipping away at the foundations of free society with the unwitting aid of moderate muslims and live-and-let-live liberals who, in their effort to avoid bogus labels like "bigot" and/or "racist," are sacrifing our freedoms. Hell truly is paved with the best intentions.

LightWuv
03-12-2009, 12:01 AM
Some good points here, and quality conversation for sure by interweb standards, but how about that Alan Moore chap, eh?:D

People can certainly be excused for thinking this was a regular superhero movie, if they weren't familiar with the source material. Harsh and unenviable your cinematic experience must have been, yes!

The comic is quite good, though, I think, in terms of artistic qualities - as mentioned upstream by the erudite Mr. Choung and others. :D

"Bring yer own squid" is the best addition to the discussion so far, in my view :thumbsup::thumbsup:

LightWuv
03-12-2009, 12:03 AM
The comic is quite good, though, I think, in terms of artistic qualities - as mentioned upstream by the erudite Mr. Choung and others. :D

I meant to say, Jin and others have previously discussed artistic merit; calling the comic good were my words.

jin choung
03-12-2009, 12:04 AM
Islam conversely is chipping away at the foundations of free society with the unwitting aid of moderate muslims and live-and-let-live liberals who, in their effort to avoid bogus labels like "bigot" and/or "racist," are sacrifing our freedoms. Hell truly is paved with the best intentions.

you have nothing to fear. that's the thing that is somewhat puzzling with your rather urgent view. especially as an american.

no amount of religious wrangling from any side is going to overturn freedoms in societies that have it.

u.n. measures blah blah blah... lawsuits blah blah blah... it's not gonna take. it's blatantly obvious it's not going to work. and it's also blatantly obvious that it is a reactionary impulse driven by being persecuted or vulnerable in the west.
---------------------------------------------------------------

and you can't judge ANYTHING by its most extreme and unbalanced adherents.

as i said, your views as you've laid it out is that islam (as represented in the quran) is unequivocally violent and intolerant and etc etc etc.

as i said, if you find a single verse that contradicts that (as you admit there are many), then your forceful statements have lost their force.

it's not ISLAM. it's INTERPRETATION. and at that point, it's about the person/people. just as it is in christianity (God hates fags, etc.).

your vendetta against islam seems unwarranted and according to your own admission - INACCURATE.

according to what you just said, it's NOT about islam but its interpretation.

you can say properly then that you have a problem against EXTREMISTS but that's not what you're saying. you are selectively avoiding verses that nullify your point. and that's not valid.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

and as an american, you have much more to fear from the other two of the big 3 than islam.
----------------------------------------------------------------

jin

jin choung
03-12-2009, 12:15 AM
Some good points here, and quality conversation for sure by interweb standards, but how about that Alan Moore chap, eh?:D

a self proclaimed snake worshipper (srsly... wtf...?! that alone makes it hard to take him srsly....) and somewhat... ehhhhh... avant garde... appearance, he's a pretty strange dude.

personally i was more impressed with the extraordinary league first series than watchmen (a superhero group consisting of pre/victorian literary characters... awesome concept!) and frank miller's dark knight returns than watchmen....

and his long long long long text appendices in his works feel self indulgent to me. like having long VO monologues in movies or long text passages in games. you're not playing to the medium's strengths... and either it's important enough to be in the work proper or if not CUT IT OUT!

economy.

if you want to write a book, write a book. glad to see he's writing books to get that part of himself a release.

jin

DiedonD
03-12-2009, 01:07 AM
you have nothing to fear. that's the thing that is somewhat puzzling with your rather urgent view. especially as an american.

no amount of religious wrangling from any side is going to overturn freedoms in societies that have it.

u.n. measures blah blah blah... lawsuits blah blah blah... it's not gonna take. it's blatantly obvious it's not going to work. and it's also blatantly obvious that it is a reactionary impulse driven by being persecuted or vulnerable in the west.
---------------------------------------------------------------

and you can't judge ANYTHING by its most extreme and unbalanced adherents.

as i said, your views as you've laid it out is that islam (as represented in the quran) is unequivocally violent and intolerant and etc etc etc.

as i said, if you find a single verse that contradicts that (as you admit there are many), then your forceful statements have lost their force.

it's not ISLAM. it's INTERPRETATION. and at that point, it's about the person/people. just as it is in christianity (God hates fags, etc.).

your vendetta against islam seems unwarranted and according to your own admission - INACCURATE.

according to what you just said, it's NOT about islam but its interpretation.

you can say properly then that you have a problem against EXTREMISTS but that's not what you're saying. you are selectively avoiding verses that nullify your point. and that's not valid.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

and as an american, you have much more to fear from the other two of the big 3 than islam.
----------------------------------------------------------------

jin

Yes, yes. As I said, there are some insecurities at stake here. By targeting those, hopefully Chris calms down.

But I too dont think US of A is that fragile to ruin its freedom to anyone, leave alone islam. To the contrary, USA is in islamic countries trying to make freedom and democracy there. Its USA effecting islamic countries more, than the other way around.

Or even better. What if they both are effecting each other! One of USA's 'goals' derived from a groundles (meaning none one cultural) start, was that it would mix and boil all cultures in it. It seems rather good, that to make matters equal, theyd effect each others cultures, thus coming into a somewhat medium goal. Melting cultures, religions and all that,is the way.

Of course, in the process certain resources get to be used in one way or the other, but thats the present days problem - Super Greed!

Chris S. (Fez)
03-12-2009, 01:11 AM
you have nothing to fear. that's the thing that is somewhat puzzling with your rather urgent view. especially as an american.

Your lack of urgency is no less puzzling to me. Take the UK for instance:

UK is legitimizing civil courts: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576066/We-want-to-offer-sharia-law-to-Britain.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7232661.stm

The UK is keeping out people because of their beliefs on Islam: http://torchlight.typepad.com/torchlight/2009/02/geert-wilders-bbc-interview-regarding-his-being-rejected-by-the-uk.html



no amount of religious wrangling from any side is going to overturn freedoms in societies that have it.

u.n. measures blah blah blah... lawsuits blah blah blah... it's not gonna take. it's blatantly obvious it's not going to work.


It is blatantly obvious that Western freedoms are being threatened. Here are two recent notorious examples: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2009/01/middle-east-dut.html

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/09/death-of-free-speech-in-netherlands.html

Litigation and UN resolutions which directly affect our freedoms are ongoing. EVERY freedom-loving person should share my "vendetta" until Muslims are secure enough in their faith to eat the same humble pies that Christians do day in and day out in mainstream media/entertainment.



and you can't judge ANYTHING by its most extreme and unbalanced adherents.

I never suggested you could. I have suggested that instead of obsessing over Islamophobia and cartoons more moderate Muslims should be honest and acknowledge that there are indeed unseemly aspects to Islam that are sexist, supremist, violent and which directly threaten democracy.



as i said, your views as you've laid it out is that islam (as represented in the quran) is unequivocally violent and intolerant and etc etc etc.

as i said, if you find a single verse that contradicts that (as you admit there are many), then your forceful statements have lost their force.

it's not ISLAM. it's INTERPRETATION. and at that point, it's about the person/people. just as it is in christianity (God hates fags, etc.).

your vendetta against islam seems unwarranted and according to your own admission - INACCURATE.
jin



Innacurate? Interpretation? How about you help Kuzey out with these questions, since he seems incapable or unwilling to answer?

1) What is the penalty for being homosexual under Shariah law?

2) What is the penalty for converting from Islam to Christianity under Shariah law?

3) Under Shariah law, is a woman's testimony equal to that of a man? How about rape trials in particular?

4) Under Shariah law, is a husband allowed under certain circumstances to physically harm his wife?

Chris S. (Fez)
03-12-2009, 01:15 AM
Yes, yes. As I said, there are some insecurities at stake here. By targeting those, hopefully Chris calms down.


I am not insecure at all. I am also completely calm. If an ideology was threatening the freedom of speech and expression in your young country I would hope you would also stand up for freedom.

DiedonD
03-12-2009, 01:22 AM
It is blatantly obvious that Western freedoms are being threatened.


So one of the worlds leading superpowers can be enslaved by words?!


EVERY freedom-loving person should share my "vendetta" ...

Now thats just scarry!



Innacurate? Interpretation? How about you help Kuzey out with these questions, since he seems incapable or unwilling to answer?

1) What is the penalty for being homosexual under Shariah law?

2) What is the penalty for converting from Islam to Christianity under Shariah law?

3) Under Shariah law, is a woman's testimony equal to that of a man? How about rape trials in particular?

4) Under Shariah law, is a husband allowed under certain circumstances to physically harm his wife?


Ill help you with that Chris

1) Probably death
2) Probably death
3) They arent
4) Probably yes

Now then. Those questions answered. Can you answer me just one question?

Just in what way REALLY do you think that one of the world superpowers is going to allow its freedom and democracy be enslaved by other countries centuries old Shariah laws?! Huh?

Or in other words? Dont USA people have an Ego of their own? Will it all crumble just because of newly islamic immigrants say out their words in the open? Just how fragile do you think your country is?

LightWuv
03-12-2009, 01:28 AM
personally i was more impressed with the extraordinary league first series than watchmen (a superhero group consisting of pre/victorian literary characters... awesome concept!) and frank miller's dark knight returns than watchmen....

DKR is a solid piece of work, and I fear the film, whenever it is made, must disappoint. It is also quite a lot more accessible than Watchmen, which is, when including the prose, quite dense.

The third LoEG includes a faux Shakespeare play; I found it amusing. There's also a faux Wodehouse story, if memory serves; also enjoyable.

And as a sidenote comment on the religious debate, Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens debate blasphemy at the Guardian Hay Festival in 2005 (http://rapidshare.com/files/119079712/FryAndHitchens_-_Blasphemy.mp3.html). Intermittently insightful; often entertaining. Judging by recent posts, it should be interesting for DiedonD, Chris, and me, at the very least. Enjoy :)

Chris S. (Fez)
03-12-2009, 01:29 AM
Or in other words? Dont USA people have an Ego of their own? Will it all crumble just because of newly islamic immigrants say out their words in the open? Just how fragile do you think your country is?

I think you miss the point. I think Muslims should be able to say whatever they want and, at the same time, should allow others to say whatever they want...even if it is offensive.

DiedonD
03-12-2009, 01:39 AM
I think you miss the point. I think Muslims should be able to say whatever they want and, at the same time, should allow others to say whatever they want...even if it is offensive.

Well thats better. And I beleive so too.

But you were going with a



It is blatantly obvious that Western freedoms are being threatened.

And I rushed up at my feet, adrenaline pumping thinking 'Someone dares THREAT my USA'!

You oughta change the tone a bit. Cause aye THREAT, in the real gravity of the word, is more powerful than what you just said now!

So now, nobody is threatening anyone. Its just that you think youre not beeing heard enough! And your cultures of portraying Muhammed isnt getting there, while their rough laws are getting over to you.

LOL. So youre beeing... erm, 'loved' and they arent allowing you to 'love' them back huh ;) . Not fair at all ;) . But youve got your army there, Avganistan president is quite democratic, itll start melting soon Chres :)

In the meantime, keep this guys heart at peace by staying away from 'threat' and 'vandetta' words! Ok? ;)

Chris S. (Fez)
03-12-2009, 02:35 AM
In the meantime, keep this guys heart at peace by staying away from 'threat' and 'vandetta' words! Ok? ;)

"Vendetta" was Jin's contribution (why I put it in quotes) and is indeed an alarming word :agree:.

I honestly don't think "threat" is too strong a word after the cartoon riots, do you? The number of western papers that refused to publish the toons out of political correctness or out of fear of reprisal was scary (to me anyway).

Anyways, been an interesting chat but I have to bow out. Sorry to fan the OT flames.

Exception
03-12-2009, 03:00 AM
Hey Jin. I disagree. The Koran is filled with crazy contradictions.

I thought this discussion was decided on?
Oh well, on with the circus!

Like Jin said, everything you say against Islam we can easily find an example for Christianity.
In the case of cruelty and violence in the Quran... have you actually read the Quran? I bet you have not, and then you have no right of judgment, now do you? And in case you thought the Quran was worse than the bible, perhaps you take a good look at the bible again and see the impossibly numerous acts of violence held therein, quite a few more than in the Quran... did you know that according to the bible it's okay to massacre your sons if they see you naked and drunk in the garden? Or that if you curse or blaspheme, you're supposed to be stoned to death by the village? (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/lev/24.html#16)

Here's the short list of cruelty (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/short+.html)
And here's the long list... (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html)

Oh... contradictions, you say?
Here's a list of over 400 contradictions in the bible. (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html)

Want more? There's plenty more... racism, discrimination against women, children, animals, homosexuals, etc... all to the point where their lives are 'less' than that of man.

So, please, don't give me that utter nonsense.

P.S. This is not an argument against Christianity, for all you sane believers out there, not at all. I believe the Bible as well as the Quran are wise books with many powerful lessons, and if you believe in the message rather than the words, and are able to interpret them wisely and use them to the advantage of mankind, without bias to other living things, you are the better for it. I just wish to point out that these books need never be judged by their mere texts alone, and that one needs to exercise wisdom in order to read them, in both cases, and that judging people following the religion attached to one book cannot be done by the mere text of thebook alone... if there is even a basis for judgment at all.



It is blatantly obvious that Western freedoms are being threatened.

And what freedoms are that, Mr. defender of Western Liberty? The freedom to have your brains electrocuted if you raise your voice critically in public (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Florida_Taser_incident)?
The freedom to be locked away without corpeus habeus on some floating prison ship in international wters, be tortured and be thrown in jail for a lifetime without ever seeing a judge? The freedom to invade countries of your liking because of economical interests and just have some pribvate militia blackwater guys massacre a bunch of civilians? The freedom to be forced to accept discriminatory law against homosexuals? The freedom to be slowly killed by pollution thrown into the commons by corporate greed assisted by corrupt government? The freedom to be arrested without reason whatsoever at any moment the government cares to? The freedom to sentence kids to jail by prison directors buying your judge (http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/23/pennsylvania.corrupt.judges/)? You have some funny ways of thinking about that 'freedom' of yours. And you think Shariah law is going to take over soon in the west? Please show me one credible news article that even suggest this movement or even remotely possible within the next 100 years... that's delusional. It's about as likely as Smurf law being adopted.

I think you've said enough, and it's blatantly obvious you don't have any solid ground to stand on.

alexos
03-12-2009, 03:08 AM
If I may get back to the movie..?

Zack Snyder didn't really need to put in the gorish parts. Zack Snyder didn't really need to make Laurie a non-smoker (because she's one of the good guys, obviously, and only bad guys smoke and consequently die of cancer) so that when she accidentally turns Archie's flamethrower on - she thought it was a lighter in the comic book - she looks like a complete idiot who'll press dangerous-looking buttons at random.

Zack Snyder didn't really need to "fix" Rorschach's monologue (in the psychiatrist's office) so that it wouldn't sound as bleak, nihilistic and rather anti-religious as it does in the comic book, turning what was basically a "there is no god" piece to a "it's not His fault" one. What's the point in being all politically correct in these details when you then proceed to add a completely gratuitous image of a guy with his arms cut off? Or a five-minutes long (and man, it did seem longer) sex scene?

As Jin said, there were so many dialogues that could have used just a *little* more time, more pauses, more silence - and we got longish, boring hand-to-hand combat scenes with the mandatory slow-mo instead. Gotta please the larger audience I suppose? Sheesh.

And finally: exactly for what reason did Zack Snyder feel the need to change the greek statue-like proportions of Manhattan's schlong to something that, as a friend put it, resembled Iggy Pop's famous "oh, hey, wow!" moment?

The movie wasn't bad. Zack Snyder, however...

ADP.

jin choung
03-12-2009, 03:27 AM
haha....

this thread is hopelessly bipolar now so chime in with thoughts on the movie or religion as whim strikes you.

chris,

question: why islam? beyond your reasoning and your citations, the fact that you focus on islam without having a word to say about the christian right in america and the similarly egregious (though i would argue, ultimately futile_) attempts at impositions on personal liberty.... it strikes me that you have a particular axe to grind with islam.

if i may ask - why is that? what is motivating that? cuz i really really really get the impression that it is being -driven- by something... and something in some way personal.

am i right?

jin

jin choung
03-12-2009, 03:37 AM
It is blatantly obvious that Western freedoms are being threatened. Here are two recent notorious examples: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2009/01/middle-east-dut.html

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/09/death-of-free-speech-in-netherlands.html


particularly bad examples.

"In remarks he made to the Dutch Volkskrant newspaper, Wilders had compared Islam to Nazism and called for the religion’s holy book, the Koran, to be banned in the Netherlands, like Hitler's "Mein Kampf."

as i say, according to that standard, you could go a long way toward banning the bible.

1. he seems to take a pretty extremist stance against islam. i would probably end up in a debate with him as well for inconsistency. the quran is NOT unequivocally hateful and intolerant. there are problematic verses and "fine" ones. just like in the bible... which accepts slavery for instance.

he has an axe to grind too.

but i find it satisfyingly ironic that he is undoubtedly b1tching about free speech when he was calling for the BAN of quran. that just tickles me.

if he's not taking on all the big 3... he has a particular axe to grind.

2. netherlands, europe and a particularly good example - germany, are not and never WERE america.

there are standards for hate speech there that are dissimilar to standards in the states.

you can have swastikas and neonazi symbols all over your house if you want to here but you can't in germany. this may simply be a similarity between netherlands and germany (closer neighbor than america).

honestly, the guy sounds like a bit of a nut to me. so i don't find it a good example... even though in america, we defend our nuts.

jin

jin choung
03-12-2009, 03:47 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia#Human_rights

look under the sections for human rights and women's rights.

seriously, cut them some slack. they post date christianity by more than half a century.

christians were seriously backwards when it came to human rights and equal rights for women for a long long long long time. EVEN IN AMERICA.

secular society and time wears down the offensive bits eventually.

they will change in their own time.

militarism, alarmism and xenophobia will provoke opposite reactions.

tranquilo.

jin

Nemoid
03-12-2009, 04:11 AM
i think this thread derailed ALOT from the main purpose.

I didn' see Watchmen yet.

However what i want to say is this :

Watchmen is a masterpiece as a graphic novel. It's all there.
Read that one, and be happy with it.

Alan Moore stressed this many times.
He is a writer. Writes comic books and graphic novels and books.
He doesn't make movies.
And he doesn't want to have to deal with people ruining his work.

Another thing to say is that Watchmen, is particularly difficult to adapt as a movie, because it finds its sense completely as a graphic novel, in pages, and comic book language as a medium.

It would be more clever for Holliwood producers to try and ask Moore to write for them an original screenplay for a movie (If he'd ever accept, because he kinda hates many aspects of movie production habitudes in hollywood)

jin choung
03-12-2009, 04:17 AM
btw,

non download version:

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/culturevulture/Blasphemy.mp3

hahaha... "benevolent dictator"....

listening now. quite entertaining. everyone british sounds so intelligent. love their parliamentary system of balls to the walls public argument too. some of the less... ehhhhhh.... gifted.... members of america's recent political past would be torn apart limb from limb....

jin

Lightwolf
03-12-2009, 04:46 AM
2. netherlands, europe and a particularly good example - germany, are not and never WERE america.
True. Not more or less freedom... but a different standard of freedom altogether.


you can have swastikas and neonazi symbols all over your house if you want to here but you can't in germany. this may simply be a similarity between netherlands and germany (closer neighbor than america).

It is a similarity, but even though the reason for that comes from the same historical events I'd suppose there's still a bit of a difference.

Another example might be that it's a criminal offence here to publicly denounce the holocaust (we just had a guy put into jail for that). And before anybody brings up Ahmedinidjad I'll mention Bishop Williams.

Cheers,
Mike

Exception
03-12-2009, 04:50 AM
Wilders is an extreme right wing provocateur, whose sole objective is to gain the populist vote by being in the media as often as possible, causing as much of a stir as he can. If that means possible harm to anyone, or riling up aggressive counterparties, all the better for it. He's a true Islam slanderer. It's probably the most productive counterpoint to your whole argument anyone can give. Thanks for helping us along with that one.

Iain
03-12-2009, 05:49 AM
That coming from someone who's accusing me of holocaust denial?!
And then has the nerve to ignore my response... Brilliant!


Funny-the same poster was very vocal on another thread about how Evolutionists wished they could only find fossil proof to back up their 'beliefs'.

When it was pointed out that proof had been discovered decades ago but Christians seem to be being deliberately misled about it (those who don't investigate for themselves, obviously,) he just........disappeared.

Chris S. (Fez)
03-12-2009, 07:46 AM
Peace gentleman. Some of you seem to be taking my posts very personally.



Like Jin said, everything you say against Islam we can easily find an example for Christianity.
In the case of cruelty and violence in the Quran... have you actually read the Quran? I think you've said enough, and it's blatantly obvious you don't have any solid ground to stand on.

I have indeed read the Koran. You on the other hand might want to read my previous posts a bit more carefully:

"In any case, I don't think relativism excuses the unseemly aspects of Islam (ie. Islam is peaceful compared to the old testament).

To me, the major religions ("the big three" at least) are all supremely strange mythologies. I compare Islam not to Christianity but to democratic ideals. Again, as far as I am concerned Christianity is no longer a realistic threat to secular society because anyone can say anything they want about Christianity without fear of bodily harm or legal prosecution."



And what freedoms are that, Mr. defender of Western Liberty?

Freedom of speech in particular. Again, why is it that Islam is the one subject that South Park and Family Guy are not allowed to lampoon? If we can't talk about Islam openly and honestly and critically then how can moderate Muslims triumph over extremist interpretations? Why is it Islamophobic to merely report on how extremist muslims are leveraging legitimate doctrine to justify their terror or their suppression of woman and nonbelievers?


particularly bad examples.

"In remarks he made to the Dutch Volkskrant newspaper, Wilders had compared Islam to Nazism and called for the religion’s holy book, the Koran, to be banned in the Netherlands, like Hitler's "Mein Kampf."

This is an excellent point and one I have considered and that Wilders has addressed in recent interviews. Wilders insists he is asking for consistency in application of the Dutch Penal Code, asking us to consider the following: if his views on Islam constitute "hate speech" then how can the Koran NOT be considered hate speech?

http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2009/02/11/geert-wilders-and-the-mendacious-very-little-green-craven-one-and-his-mindless-minions/

"Wilders, like his Hindu predecessors was fed up with Muslim abuse of similar Indian laws...and simply saying if one bans hate speech, in accord with existing Dutch Law, then the Koran is hate speech."



chris,

question: why islam? beyond your reasoning and your citations, the fact that you focus on islam without having a word to say about the christian right in america
jin

Because no one else seems willing. Like all of you, I work ridiculously long hours for a living. I have clients and many employees who depend on me. I have to pick my battles. I did not jump in to defend gay marriage in that mammoth thread because it was quickly obvious that you and others did not need my humble contribution to debunk the conservative views.

How is it that you can passionately defend gay rights and simultaneously suggest I "cut...some slack" on a sexist,supremist,violent ideology that is spreading faster then any other? Shariah law is being freshly implemented TODAY in modern governments and is being legitimized by the U.K.s installation of Shariah civil courts. Accordingly, do I really need a compelling personal reason?

I feel my personal experiences are irrelevent. Let's just address the issues.

In any case, because we can openly criticize conservative christian views those views are increasingly losing credibility. Shouldn't Islam be subject to the same criticism?

As mentioned above, if Wilders is guilty of hate speech then how would you define the following Quranic passages compiled by Andrew Bostom?

(9:5) Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.;

(9:28) O ye who believe! The idolaters only are unclean. So let them not come near the Inviolable Place of Worship after this their year. If ye fear poverty (from the loss of their merchandise) Allah shall preserve you of His bounty if He will. Lo! Allah is Knower, Wise.;

(4:101) And when ye go forth in the land, it is no sin for you to curtail (your) worship if ye fear that those who disbelieve may attack you. In truth the disbelievers are an open enemy to you.;

(9:123) O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him).;

(4:56) Lo! Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment. Lo! Allah is ever Mighty, Wise.;

(9:23) O ye who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoso of you taketh them for friends, such are wrong-doers.;

(9:37) Postponement (of a sacred month) is only an excess of disbelief whereby those who disbelieve are misled; they allow it one year and forbid it (another) year, that they may make up the number of the months which Allah hath hallowed, so that they allow that which Allah hath forbidden. The evil of their deeds is made fairseeming unto them. Allah guideth not the disbelieving folk;

(5:57) O Ye who believe! Choose not for guardians such of those who received the Scripture before you, and of the disbelievers, as make a jest and sport of your religion. But keep your duty to Allah if ye are true believers.;

(33:61) Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter.;

(21:98) Lo! ye (idolaters) and that which ye worship beside Allah are fuel of hell. Thereunto ye will come.;

(32:22) And who doth greater wrong than he who is reminded of the revelations of his Lord, then turneth from them. Lo! We shall requite the guilty.;

(48:20) Allah promiseth you much booty that ye will capture, and hath given you this in advance, and hath withheld men’s hands from you, that it may be a token for the believers, and that He may guide you on a right path.;

(8:69) Now enjoy what ye have won [in war], as lawful and good, and keep your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.;

(66:9) O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey’s end.;

(41:27) But verily We shall cause those who disbelieve to taste an awful doom, and verily We shall requite them the worst of what they used to do.;

(41:28) That is the reward of Allah’s enemies: the Fire. Therein is their immortal home, payment forasmuch as they denied Our revelations.;

(9:111) Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain. It is a promise which is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur’an. Who fulfilleth His covenant better than Allah? Rejoice then in your bargain that ye have made, for that is the supreme triumph.;

(9:68) Allah promiseth the hypocrites, both men and women, and the disbelievers fire of hell for their abode. It will suffice them. Allah curseth them, and theirs is lasting torment.;

(8:65) O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you twenty steadfast they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a hundred (steadfast) they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are a folk without intelligence.;

(5:51) O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.;

(9:29) Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.;

(5:14) And with those who say: “Lo! we are Christians,” We made a covenant, but they forgot a part of that whereof they were admonished. Therefore We have stirred up enmity and hatred among them till the Day of Resurrection, when Allah will inform them of their handiwork.;

(4:89) They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them;

(9:14) Fight them! Allah will chastise them at your hands, and He will lay them low and give you victory over them, and He will heal the breasts of folk who are believers.”

shrox
03-12-2009, 08:26 AM
Having now lived in America and England, I would say they are indeed separated by a common language..."fanny pack" being one of those words.

Chris S. (Fez)
03-12-2009, 08:51 AM
It has become painfully obvious that my concerns for free speech and democratic rule of law are based on pure Islamophobic paranoia. From TODAY:

Geneva, March 11, 2009 — A new U.N. resolution circulated today by Islamic states would define any questioning of Islamic dogma as a human rights violation, intimidate dissenting voices, and encourage the forced imposition of Sharia law.

http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1285603&content_id={AF491436-ED3D-46F5-8CC4-E14577482787}&notoc=1

"Ultimately, it is the very notion of individual human rights at stake, because the sponsors of this resolution seek not to protect individuals from harm, but rather to shield a specific set of beliefs from any question, debate, or critical inquiry.

The resolution's core premise -- that "defamation of religion" exists as legal concept -- is a distortion. The law on defamation protects the reputations of individuals, not beliefs. It also requires an examination of the truth or falsity of the challenged remarks -- a determination that no one, especially not the UN, is capable of undertaking concerning any religion.



Tragically, given that Islamic states completely dominate the Human Rights Council, with the support of non-democratic members like Russia, China, and Cuba, adoption of the regressive resolution is a forgone conclusion. E.U. diplomats hope at best to win over a handful of wavering Latin American states to the dissenting side."

Kuzey
03-12-2009, 08:55 AM
No. I do not want my free society/culture to DEVOLVE by legitimizing Shariah in the name of multiculturalism and freedom of religion. Why did you not anwer a single question I posted about shariah law? I'll post them again for your convenience:

1) What is the penalty for being homosexual under Shariah law?

2) What is the penalty for converting from Islam to Christianity under Shariah law?

3) Under Shariah law, is a woman's testimony equal to that of a man? How about rape trials in particular?

4) Under Shariah law, is a husband allowed under certain circumstances to physically harm his wife?


Why do you insist on addressing me instead of the issues? Again, do you agree that there are aspects of Islam that are sexist, supremist and violent?



Instead of addressing the issues honestly and openly you insinuate I am racist and hope it sticks. Islam is an IDEOLOGY. It is not racist or bigoted to be cautious of an ideology that is undeniably sexist, supremist and violent.



Too often Muslims immigrate to free Western societies and use those freedoms to further Islam...at the expense of freedom. I believe passionately in freedom of speech, expression and the separation of church and state. A muslim prophet is your prophet only. Papers can and should be able to publish satirical cartoons and critical essays without fear of being prosecuted for blasphemy and/or "offending" Muslims.

Can you imagine if George Bush, with the countless unflattering caricatures of "W" portrayed in political cartoons, sued for being "offended"? Muslim nations in the UN are trying to do exactly that:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/02/a-free-speech-killer/
"Jordan prosecutor Hassan Abdullat subpoenaed "11 Danes for drawing and reprinting" cartoons that offend Islam."


Can you not see how granting special protective status to an ideology or a person (ie. your prophet) harms democracy?



Muslims are overwhelmingly moderate. In my humble opinion, Islam itself is not and can never be truly moderate with verses like these in the Koran: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm



So just to be absolutely clear, you are satisfied with how Shariah law treats the testimony of a female compared to the testimony of a male?



Exactly why we should ALL be cautious of an ideology that is sexist, supremist and violent.



A democracy completely undermined by Islam: http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Religion/?id=3.0.3085587696
"Kabul, 9 March (AKI) - Afghanistan's Supreme Court has upheld a 20-year jail term for blasphemy handed to Afghan journalist Sayed Parwez Kambakhsh, who claimed men and women were equal."

With rulings like this how can we not ALL be concerned that Islam is undermining Western society? Consider that virtually ALL modern moderate Muslim nations in the UN are trying to criminalize "defamation of religion": http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/2008/01/02/defamation-of-religion-becomes-un-resolution/



In the case mentioned above the Islamic government won their case against the defendent, who was found guilty of blasphemy: "The death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment following pressure from international human rights organisations."

By your logic "If they win, then they were right" should I assume you agree that the defendent is guilty of a crime?

Respectfully, please think for yourself. Re-read the Koran with an open mind. Just because you WANT to believe that Islam is purely a religion of peace and tolerance does not make it so.

Come on Chris, just when we had that break through of your actual concerns you try to back peddle. Now I know your real concerns nothing you say can take it back :D

Do you actually think that if the policeman and the person in the wheelchair win their cases in court or even that UN action by Islamic nations goes through, then that somehow it means Shariah law automatically becomes law in the West.

I think you are paranoid, feeding yourself into a frenzy, take it easy and step back a bit. There is no Shariah law in Turkey and I wouldn't want it either, you are trying to confuse matters by jumping all around. Those laws were made for the society at the time they were written, that's 1400 years ago. However, I think it can still be used as a moral base to live by, eg trying to be good person etc. no stealing, no committing of any crimes, helping the poor just like the ten commandments is also part of the Koran.

That is what Islam is, it's a personal journey of self betterment and discovery and helping out those less fortunate when ever possible. The Koran is also a history book depicting the very violent events that occurred during the first years of Islam, it describes the battles and why they won one and why they lost other battles. For example, they won when they were greatly out numbered in the first battle but lost the next one because they got carried away and going over board by killing innocent civilians. They learned that lesson and then won the other battles because they stuck to the writings of the Koran, by not killing innocent people and destroying everyone and everything in sight, giving the opposing army a change to live instead of being wiped out etc....which, wasn't an actual book then as it was constantly been reviled to the Prophet.

It's not a how to book like you make it out to be, you must kill a non Muslim you come across etc. One must know it's history if one is not to repeat it. It's saying that if you don't falter in your beliefs even under hardest circumstances like say a war, you will be protected. It's about self control in the extreme situations and if you go against the teachings like kill a child to try to save yourself then you will be punished etc.

When have you seen any history book that doesn't describe the violence in detail of the period in history that they are depicting?

Society is a two way street, the new people form different cultures come into it and the society itself, both sides must change even a little and adapt for it to work and become a better society. But if you think that new people who come into your society has to do what you do and believe what you believe, then that is wrong...don't you think? That's when you get problems, when you tell new arrivals to go back where they came from and or spit in their faces instead of welcoming them and getting to know them. They will do what people will do, they will find other people from the same culture and stick together, not learning the new language or it's ways and you end up with a ghetto. Then people complain they don't integrate and they cause violence etc. it's a never ending cycle. In that environment, Shariah law might look good to them because they have seen more hostility than friendship...all they want is to belong. When you take that opportunity away they will find something else to fill the gap.

Get off your high horse, last time I checked the Western society be it Christian or not is also "of an ideology that is sexist, supremist and violent". After all they are the same in that respect aren't they, Man being on the top and Women coming way down the chain as a second rate citizen :hey:

Thank you in telling me how to think, I don't think you'll find someone more open minded. Chris, what you should actually do is talk to a Muslim face to face instead of getting bent out of shape by believing right wing crap...please take your own advise and think for yourself :hey:

As to the fact that are you a racist or not. I believe you're not a racist even though you like to read right winged websites. What I think is that something has happened to you in the past that is affecting your perspective now. You hinted at it in the last time this topic came up, that you had an experience of some sort. I don't think you were born an atheist, so that leads to something happening in your previous religion to you or someone near to you. Now, you might think this experience has opened your eyes to how evil all religion is but it has also wounded a part of you that makes you feel ok with you are on a crusade on something. Crap happens, that's a part of life, we do our best to get past it as best we can, but being stuck in the same place is no way to become a happier person. So, best of luck to you Chris and I hope you find what you are looking for. Peace out.

Then again, I could be wrong about that last bit...but I don't mind being wrong at all. In either case best of luck.

Kuzey

shrox
03-12-2009, 09:00 AM
Any women care to give their view on Islam?

shrox
03-12-2009, 09:14 AM
Any gay people or females wanting an abortion performed care give their view on Christians?

That answer would be love others and tend to your own sin first, then you won't have time to accuse anybody else.

And why do you say I am stupid to know Jesus?

shrox
03-12-2009, 09:20 AM
God is imaginary. It is silly to believe in imaginary beings, yes? But do you really think we'll come to an agreement on that, on this forum? I don't, from past experience. :)

Nice touch with the personal signature there, not that I mind if you get a righteous kick out of it. Don't take it so personally when someone confronts your world view. You can just point out the flaws of my atheism instead :)

Next up on a CG forum near you, adults fighting over the existence of Santa Claus..

I still wonder why you say I am stupid...

shrox
03-12-2009, 09:37 AM
I think believing in god is stupid, because it is all one big fat hoax.

I never said you were stupid, directed at you. I believe that belief in god is stupid, but that does not make a person entirely stupid - that would be a ridiculous claim. I've met people I liked who believe in god, you know :) But I still think that part is whack.

So it's a blanket statement that may or may not include me. I can accept that.

Chris S. (Fez)
03-12-2009, 09:59 AM
Come on Chris, just when we had that break through of your actual concerns you try to back peddle. Now I know your real concerns nothing you say can take it back :D


I don't take anything back.



Do you actually think that if the policeman and the person in the wheelchair win their cases in court or even that UN action by Islamic nations goes through, then that somehow it means Shariah law automatically becomes law in the West.

I think you are paranoid, feeding yourself into a frenzy, take it easy and step back a bit.

Look at the post before yours concerning the UN resolution from TODAY. I am not paranoid and certainly not in a frenzy: "Geneva, March 11, 2009 — A new U.N. resolution circulated today by Islamic states would define any questioning of Islamic dogma as a human rights violation, intimidate dissenting voices, and encourage the forced imposition of Sharia law."

I have addressed your posts calmly and directly, without resorting to ad hominem. Conversely, it seems you are unable or unwilling to answer my questions.

Muslims in the West are too often attempting to change the rule of law to accomodate their beliefs. Lunch menus at public schools are being altered. Foot baths are being installed in publically-subsidized institutions. etc. etc.

Incredibly, private businesses are being sued for not accomodating muslims and/or for not hiring Muslims. It is not bigoted by default to NOT hire a Muslim or disabled person. It is not bigoted to NOT allow Muslims prayer breaks that are not allowed every other worker. If a private business has a dress code then they should NOT be obligated to change that dress code for Muslims. In my opinion.

Having said all that, would I personally care if a Muslim woman wants to wear a scarf? No! Would I personally make sure my Muslim employees received a Halal meal at the company picnic? Sure. No problem.

My problem is when this accomadation becomes legally mandatory.

I believe there should be one democratic rule of law that applies to everyone and that Islam/Muslims should not receive special protective status.



There is no Shariah law in Turkey and I wouldn't want it either, you are trying to confuse matters by jumping all around. Those laws were made for the society at the time they were written, that's 1400 years ago.


Draconian laws drafted 1400 years ago and yet, on tuesday, "the cabinet in Somalia has endorsed a proposal by President Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed to implement Islamic law in the country."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7935879.stm



When have you seen any history book that doesn't describe the violence in detail of the period in history that they are depicting?

Problem is the Koran is not a "history book." It is, according to Muslims, comprised entirely of the words of God.



Society is a two way street, the new people form different cultures come into it and the society itself, both sides must change even a little and adapt for it to work and become a better society. But if you think that new people who come into your society has to do what you do and believe what you believe, then that is wrong...don't you think?

I personally feel everyone should respect the rule of law. Shariah civil courts have no place in western society IMHO. A person is not a criminal for "offending" a muslim or for not accomodating a muslim. Society should not be legally compelled to cater to Islam.



Thank you in telling me how to think, I don't think you'll find someone more open minded. Chris, what you should actually do is talk to a Muslim face to face instead of getting bent out of shape by believing right wing crap...please take your own advise and think for yourself :hey:

If you are so open minded then why not answer my questions openly and honestly?

I know several Muslims, though I believe they are all nonpracticing. I did date an apostate Muslim who is still a dear friend. She is fiercely feminist and anti-Shariah and I admit I have taken up her cause.


So, best of luck to you Chris and I hope you find what you are looking for. Peace out.


Thanks. I appreciate that. Peace to you too.

LightWuv
03-12-2009, 09:59 AM
As Jin said, there were so many dialogues that could have used just a *little* more time, more pauses, more silence - and we got longish, boring hand-to-hand combat scenes with the mandatory slow-mo instead. Gotta please the larger audience I suppose? Sheesh.

To me Watchmen the movie could have benefited from some intense method acting - but that would surely have brought it out of the mainstream profit zone. Rorschach was the only one I felt came close; I was pretty happy with him. Good casting there.

I did wonder why they all displayed superhuman strength and fighting ability - my memory of the comic is that they were very much humans that dressed up. Remarkable, but believably human. Wirework seemed wrong, with the exception of Veidt.

Rorschach is just intense the way I read him - his mental state lends him the strength we hear about in wards where four guards are needed to restrain one 100-pound inmate. Again, the 300-like action would mislead viewers not familiar with the comic, the way I see it.


And finally: exactly for what reason did Zack Snyder feel the need to change the greek statue-like proportions of Manhattan's schlong to something that, as a friend put it, resembled Iggy Pop's famous "oh, hey, wow!" moment?

Um, not familiar with Iggy Pop or his moment? I thought the Doctor was packing a very human p enis. His over-sculpted muscularity seemed out of place; his thing made him more believable imo. I did wonder why he returned to a flaccid state so quickly when the existential threesome was aborted, though. That's not presented as attempted valid critique; much bigger grievances abound. It does attest to the toothlessness of the format though. Gratitious violence and sex that works can get as much attention as directors like; punches are still pulled where one would expect it.


btw,

non download version:

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/culturevulture/Blasphemy.mp3

hahaha... "benevolent dictator"....

listening now. quite entertaining. everyone british sounds so intelligent. love their parliamentary system of balls to the walls public argument too. some of the less... ehhhhhh.... gifted.... members of america's recent political past would be torn apart limb from limb....

jin

Those two are well-read, thoroughly educated, eloquently opinionated, and frankly, breezily genious in the way they go about their rethoric. Adding dry wit makes it all the more entertaining to me, but I know that's an acquired taste. Good points on freedom of speech there, too. At least for a European listener like me.

No matter where you stand on religion, or Watchmen the movie for that matter, it's worth a listen, I think! :thumbsup:

jin choung
03-12-2009, 03:59 PM
I feel my personal experiences are irrelevent. Let's just address the issues.

i disagree. as i said, you sound DRIVEN by something... something personal. and it is directly coloring the way you look at the issues - i.e. you've lost objectivity.

and it's pretty obvious to me that this is so.

it's relevant because it prevents you from posting a long list of verses from the quran that preach peace and friendship and tolerance... WHICH EXIST.

you keep appealing to shariah law but you can't address the complexities that exist even there as i posted previously:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shariah

you are being biased. NOT OBJECTIVE. and this is because you have an axe to grind.

"seek and you will find" is every bit a description of how the brain works as it is a promise for some.

your personal "vendetta" makes you blind to the arguments and verses on the other side. such that you just ignore them and don't let them temper your position.

jin

Philbert
03-12-2009, 04:39 PM
I haven't seen this yet. I blogged about why.

http://philnolan3d.vox.com/

jin choung
03-12-2009, 04:51 PM
I haven't seen this yet. I blogged about why.

http://philnolan3d.vox.com/

i take it you haven't read this then: http://www.newtek.com/forums/showthread.php?t=93564&highlight=horrific

seriously one of the most ludicrously graphic accounts of an accident i've ever personally read.... heroic in its detail. tragic accident and he seems to be recovering (verdict - it was a lucky thing he landed on his face)... but still....

whew!

jin

Philbert
03-12-2009, 05:08 PM
I read the first few lines then left the thread.

jin choung
03-12-2009, 05:38 PM
I read the first few lines then left the thread.

lol... yeah, every consecutive line i read i was literally saying out loud "wtf!" "wtf!!!" "wtf?!?!"....

it had the unintended effect i think of illustrating the point that the ellicitation of sympathy lies at odds with an extreme, clinical, fangoria level, blow by blow account of the incident.

in movies, this is best illustrated in the kurt russel movie soldier where the death of a village elder is unintentionally made comic because he incurred fatal injuries having been caught in an explosion that hurled him through the air in such a way that he completed no less than 2 sommersaults and possibly a triple salcal....

jin

Chris S. (Fez)
03-12-2009, 05:54 PM
i disagree. as i said, you sound DRIVEN by something... something personal. and it is directly coloring the way you look at the issues - i.e. you've lost objectivity.

I am driven to defend democracy, the rights of woman, homosexuals and non-Muslims.




it's relevant because it prevents you from posting a long list of verses from the quran that preach peace and friendship and tolerance... WHICH EXIST.

I never said the Koran's teachings were limited to violent verses. I said on this very forum that there is a lot to learn and love in the Koran. However, I think Muslims must be more open and honest about those verses that might be leveraged by extremists. Moderate muslims must accept the fact that in a truly free society Islam cannot and should not be protected from criticism.

Can you appreciate the potential consequences of this new U.N. resolution being passed (again dated TODAY)? "A new U.N. resolution circulated today by Islamic states would define any questioning of Islamic dogma as a human rights violation, intimidate dissenting voices, and encourage the forced imposition of Sharia law"
http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1285603&content_id={AF491436-ED3D-46F5-8CC4-E14577482787}&notoc=1

Jin, I ask you, how can modern moderate interpretations of the Koran ever triumph if muslims/non-muslims cannot freely examine and critique how extremist muslims interpret the violent verses?



you keep appealing to shariah law but you can't address the complexities that exist even there as i posted previously

It has been/is a busy day. Please repost/rephrase and I will try to address the "complexities".



you are being biased. NOT OBJECTIVE. and this is because you have an axe to grind.

"seek and you will find" is every bit a description of how the brain works as it is a promise for some.

your personal "vendetta" makes you blind to the arguments and verses on the other side. such that you just ignore them and don't let them temper your position.

jin

We are not discussing some academic topic with textbook horizons. Shariah law is oppressing people in terrible ways as I type. Lawsuits and resolutions that could adversely affect Western freedoms are being examined/litigated as I type. Yet you are still not satisfied that my cause (or "vendetta", as you call it) is just. As if only some awful past experience (Shariah stoning?) could justify my fervor to defend freedom...

Here is a "vendetta"-worthy scenario. How about I am bummed out because my girlfriend got 100 lashes and a year in jail for getting gang raped by 4 guys:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1141267/Saudi-judge-sentences-pregnant-gang-rape-victim-100-lashes-committing-adultery.html

If protesting such travesties of justice means I have an "axe-to-grind" then you can call me Paul ******* Bunyon.

Who cares about me and what bred my concerns? What matters is how extremists are seemingly universally interpreting the Koran and how moderate muslims are unwittingly undermining democracy with their demands for accomodation and protection.

Chris S. (Fez)
03-12-2009, 06:02 PM
it had the unintended effect i think of illustrating the point that the ellicitation of sympathy lies at odds with an extreme, clinical, fangoria level, blow by blow account of the incident.

in movies, this is best illustrated in the kurt russel movie soldier where the death of a village elder is unintentionally made comic because he incurred fatal injuries having been caught in an explosion that hurled him through the air in such a way that he completed no less than 2 sommersaults and possibly a triple salcal....
jin

Theological differences aside, that is hilarious :ohmy:.

aidenvfx
03-12-2009, 07:34 PM
i think this thread derailed ALOT from the main purpose.

I didn' see Watchmen yet.

However what i want to say is this :

Watchmen is a masterpiece as a graphic novel. It's all there.
Read that one, and be happy with it.

Alan Moore stressed this many times.
He is a writer. Writes comic books and graphic novels and books.
He doesn't make movies.
And he doesn't want to have to deal with people ruining his work.

Another thing to say is that Watchmen, is particularly difficult to adapt as a movie, because it finds its sense completely as a graphic novel, in pages, and comic book language as a medium.

It would be more clever for Holliwood producers to try and ask Moore to write for them an original screenplay for a movie (If he'd ever accept, because he kinda hates many aspects of movie production habitudes in hollywood)

I have read the graphic novel and watched the movie. First off let's remeber that Alan Moore is not much of people person. He has blasted Zack Synder as a director but never actually watched 300 just going by what a people said about the movie.

I also do not think this novel was not that hard to make on many levels.

The main problems come from how do you convince a studio to hand over twice the budget of 300 to make another R rated movie.

This is a movie that they wanted to have a naked blue man through most of it. They wanted it restricted and it needed to have the violence because one of the main concepts behind the story is to SHOW that violence causes that kind of damage. In most super hero movies sure they show Superman fighting but do they ever actually show what would happen to that persons rib cage if he actually hit them so hard they would fly accross the room into a wall?

Personally I found the violence to be tame in comparison to the reports of how violent the movie is.

From the many interviews Zack has done it sounds like making small changes such as making some characters non-smoking was worth it. Basically he gave the impression that he told the studio give me the naked man and I will remove the smoking aspect of these characters.

This movie has a budget of between 125-150 million then how many more million were spent on advertising?

With all of that said I think this should have being a 2 part movie just like Kill Bill. I think they could have made a even better movie that would have fully developed the characters and allowed for the full story to develop. With that said I am not going to say that doing this would have made more money or have even made all it's money back only that it probably would have made a better movie.

All I can say is even if the subject matter does not interest you all that much it is not a bad idea to see it if you want to see the studios spend more money on non-mainstream movies. Especially if you prefer R rated movies.

jin choung
03-12-2009, 08:04 PM
Jin, I ask you, how can modern moderate interpretations of the Koran ever triumph if muslims/non-muslims cannot freely examine and critique how extremist muslims interpret the violent verses?

you're modifying your argument now. if you have a problem with extremists and the imprudent actions of the muslim masses (again, as may have a problem with the imprudent actions of christian masses), that's one thing (which i have agreed with you) and none of us would have a problem with that.

your previous arguments have been that islam itself and quran are in their core nature violent, corrupt, supremacist, etc.. etc... etc... (seriously, we can just go back a few posts). you may make allowances for contrary verses but you're still saying that "what it really means is".

in which case, according to the same standards, you should have an equal problem with the bible. especially since the practitioners of that piece of scripture DAILY endanger the liberties of the land that YOU live in.


We are not discussing some academic topic with textbook horizons. Shariah law is oppressing people in terrible ways as I type. Lawsuits and resolutions that could adversely affect Western freedoms are being examined/litigated as I type.
....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1141267/Saudi-judge-sentences-pregnant-gang-rape-victim-100-lashes-committing-adultery.html

again, imprecision. your alarmism is mish mashing all kinds of verses and citations to make a point that doesn't follow.

saudi arabia is not the west. never has been, never will be.

yeah, that's terrible. so what else is new? i have all kinds of problems with sa, iran, iraq, afghanistan, etc etc etc. i also have a problem with russia and china and north korea etc etc etc.

i talk about most of them as they come up in conversation and the news. because they all are about the issues you seem to be championing.

but you are SINGLE MINDED in defending those virtues from one enemy alone (or at least mostly). islam.

as i said, that reads pretty PLAINLY that you have a personal stake. and that you are not the defender of the ideals you keep bringing up but only as it pertains to islam.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

as i said, their religion is relatively new. we've had time to mellow so we're not regularly burning crosses and lynching black men in the name of the christian God or frowning on women's voting rights or wearing pants or whatever or taking a beating from the husband with grace....

what you cited will never happen in england. will never happen in america. democracy will not fall to islam of all things....

racism alone will take care of that.



If protesting such travesties of justice means I have an "axe-to-grind" then you can call me Paul ******* Bunyon.

Who cares about me and what bred my concerns? What matters is how extremists are seemingly universally interpreting the Koran and how moderate muslims are unwittingly undermining democracy with their demands for accomodation and protection.

not when it's blatantly obvious that you have a personal stake in it chris. your judgment seems biased. it reads clearly that you are driven by something other than civic duty or somesuch.

if it's clear to me that you're not approaching it dispassionately (in the best sense of the word), then you are undermining yourself and your position by not addressing the bias and inflammation that makes people ask - "what's your story? what's your personal beef?"

-------------------------------------------------------------------

OF COURSE (!!!), you do NOT have to share your story. absolutely not.

but it is plain that you have one. and again, i say that unless you temper your message with some detachment, it will read as biased and personally motivated and will undermine your stated intentions.

jin

jin choung
03-12-2009, 08:08 PM
Theological differences aside, that is hilarious :ohmy:.

hahaha... thanks.

yeah, it seems to me that if you want us to really feel bad about a guy, you gotta kinda tone down the SPEC_FREAKIN_TACULARNESS of how he fell into his bad fortune.

jin

DiedonD
03-13-2009, 01:09 AM
I wonder why islamic states would isolate themselves with such a go in the UN! Surely not opening up to crits, other POVs and such, which basically means opening up to other people with other views appart from theirs, and interact with them, also means that theyre kinda isolating!

I kinda think that perhaps it has to do with learning from 'mistakes' that the Christianity and Catholic religions did! Christianty allowed art, open other POVs and critics getting into them, to the point of now: having antichristic bands, that kinda comedy, priests protrayed as children sexual abusers in comedy movies, and whole alotta more things like that, that are indeed freedom, but may be interpreted as bringing the once totalitarian religion to its knees today!

A level that the Islamic religion, learned by observing its counterpart religion, doesnt wants to get down to, by blocking out the ways its counterpart religion lost its totalitarian powers to!

So dont want to fall for that 'old' trick now, and are appraoching with such Statements on the UN that even talking about Islam is offensive to them. Cause they dont want their religion to 'fall to its knees' like the other did!

Thus come all the art ban and all that. Which means that if it wont be the old way, some rather new idea shuold be implementet. The ones that might go unnoticed or tolerated by them and be able to ridicule its totalitarian power that it has in some countries, and thus elevate humanity above that totalitarianism, at the same time

Chris S. (Fez)
03-13-2009, 05:40 AM
Post 104: DiedonD, did a Lightbulb go off above your head or are you just humoring me? Cause you suddenly seem to be sharing some of my exact concerns. Religion is power over the people.

IMO the potential for abuse is much too scary to dismiss as "alarmist".


you're modifying your argument now. if you have a problem with extremists and the imprudent actions of the muslim masses (again, as may have a problem with the imprudent actions of christian masses), that's one thing (which i have agreed with you) and none of us would have a problem with that.

Jin, I think I have been much more consistant then you give me credit for. Virtually all my posts concentrated on the threat Islam poses to personal freedom:

Post 1: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Voltaire

In other words: the freedom to offend.

I have said before, when Family Guy makes as much fun of Islam/Muslims as it does of Christians/Christianity then we will know modern moderate Islam has arrived.

Post 2: "It is NOT my view you should be concerned about but the view of "extremist" Muslims who are leveraging legitimate Islamic doctrine and "moderate" Muslims who are suing all across the West for being "offended."

Post 3: "How can Islam ever "arrive" when the UN, with the support of "moderate" Muslims, is trying to criminalize "defamation of religion"?

Post 4: "It is like locking a beloved pet in a box for its protection, only to have it smother. I can only hope that "offended" Muslims and the politically correct liberals who accomodate them do not fully grasp what these lawsuits are doing to democracy."

Post 5: "Too often Muslims immigrate to free Western societies and use those freedoms to further Islam...at the expense of freedom. I believe passionately in freedom of speech, expression and the separation of church and state. A muslim prophet is your prophet only. Papers can and should be able to publish satirical cartoons and critical essays without fear of being prosecuted for blasphemy and/or "offending" Muslims.

Can you not see how granting special protective status to an ideology or a person (ie. your prophet) harms democracy?"

Post 9: "I think you miss the point. I think Muslims should be able to say whatever they want and, at the same time, should allow others to say whatever they want...even if it is offensive."

Post 10: "Freedom of speech in particular. Again, why is it that Islam is the one subject that South Park and Family Guy are not allowed to lampoon? If we can't talk about Islam openly and honestly and critically then how can moderate Muslims triumph over extremist interpretations? Why is it Islamophobic to merely report on how extremist muslims are leveraging legitimate doctrine to justify their terror or their suppression of woman and nonbelievers?"

Pattern is pretty clear, IMO.



your previous arguments have been that islam itself and quran are in their core nature violent, corrupt, supremacist, etc.. etc... etc... (seriously, we can just go back a few posts). you may make allowances for contrary verses but you're still saying that "what it really means is".

Honestly, there is no such "previous" argument. I have often repeated variations of the following point: "it is not important how I personally interpret these passages but how some muslims interpret the passages...and whether those interpretations are reasonable and legitimized by Islamic doctrine/leaders/scholars.

The extremists are crazy but I do not think they are crazy for their Quranic interpretations. Indeed, I do not envy the semantic feats moderate muslims must engage in to convince extremists that these passages do NOT condone violence against disbelievers:

(9:123) O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him).;

(4:56) Lo! Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment. Lo! Allah is ever Mighty, Wise.;




in which case, according to the same standards, you should have an equal problem with the bible. especially since the practitioners of that piece of scripture DAILY endanger the liberties of the land that YOU live in.

I said as much in my first response to you ("I don't deny that at all.")

So why don't I engage Christians? I have addressed this multiple times in this thread: "as far as I am concerned Christianity is no longer a realistic threat to secular society because anyone can say anything they want about Christianity without fear of bodily harm or legal prosecution."

See post 104 for an interesting/amusing synopsis by DiedonD on how freedom of expression declawed Christianity.

Conversely, U.N. resolutions and court cases on Islam that potentially affect personal freedoms are being examined/litigated NOW. I think the urgency to inform people on the dangers of accomodating/protecting Islam should be apparent.



again, imprecision. your alarmism is mish mashing all kinds of verses and citations to make a point that doesn't follow..

Tragically, extremists routinely make my point for me. These are THEIR interpretations, not necessarily mine.



saudi arabia is not the west. never has been, never will be.

Which is why I feel that "alarmists" like myself should work to stifle attempts to spread supremist doctrine within the West:
"Saudi Academy in Va. revises Islamic history books"http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5igZiBbZdKa9Gvx8uwXlsIOxoBQ5wD96SDI0O1

Incidentally, if my concerns are so contrived isn't it slightly remarkable that virtually all my links of relevant current events are harvested from media outlets on THE SAME DAY as my posts.



i talk about most of them as they come up in conversation and the news. because they all are about the issues you seem to be championing.

but you are SINGLE MINDED in defending those virtues from one enemy alone (or at least mostly). islam.

Please take my posts in context. I was taking issue with Exception's contention that "Islam is being villified to the extreme."

If Islam is being villified it is not by media outlets but by Extremists who are UNIVERSALLY leveraging legitimate doctrine to justify their violence and supremist pursuits. It is potentially telling that these extremists are linked not by geography but by ideology.



as i said, that reads pretty PLAINLY that you have a personal stake. and that you are not the defender of the ideals you keep bringing up but only as it pertains to islam.

Again, I have to pick my battles and this particular battle is being waged today in the U.N. and western court rooms. Perhaps an ideological rundown of some other pet issues will satisfy you:

Gay Marriage: Legal
Death Penalty: Illegal (irrational exception made for Child molesters)
Flag Burning: Fine
Prosecution for Holocaust Denial: Wrong
Drugs : Legalized/Regulated
Polygamy:Go for it
Abortion: Legal
etc.etc.

IMO you should be able to do anything you want as long as you don't hurt anybody (not including fetuses and Madoff). This does not include hurt feelings. Offending someone is fair game.



what you cited will never happen in england. will never happen in america. democracy will not fall to islam of all things....


But can it not be argued that Democracy in England has already been undermined by Islam? This is my main point and why I started out with the Voltaire quote:

Take Wilders for instance. He may well be a crazy rightwing nutjob but he was denied access to the UK because of his beliefs on Islam.

In a truly free society Islam cannot and should not receive special protection/accomodation. Rule of law should be applied to everyone equally. IMO hate laws should protect people, not beliefs.


it's blatantly obvious that you have a personal stake in it chris. your judgment seems biased. it reads clearly that you are driven by something other than civic duty or somesuch.

Sorry, I am still not convinced that my personal experience is relevant.

I attempted to address the issues directly without resorting to ad hominem. Wherever possible I backed up points with links to applicable current events from the SAME DAY as my posts to illustrate that they are indeed urgent/relevant/topical.



i say that unless you temper your message with some detachment, it will read as biased and personally motivated and will undermine your stated intentions.


Is it really not enough to inform the forum that I am a secular atheist?

Is it not enough to honestly and openly address the issue: Islam? Do I really need to piss all over Christianity in my first post from now on just to confirm that I am not a biased bible-beating crusader? Please play devils advocate and argue my side for a minute. How do I "detach"?

DiedonD
03-13-2009, 05:55 AM
Neither

I kinda suspected that youd think that Im now joining your ALARM PARADE, but Id like to make clear one thing here.

See, Im just curious to know weather its because of those reasons, that they dont want to 'fall' for the 'old' tricks, that they are going on along with that statement in the UN! Seems like that to me. And was opening up for an idea, that perhaps in different cultures, other totalitarian ridiculing measures oughta be used from themselves. Perhaps one type of humor and art cannot be used for all religion thingy. And opening up for ideas and think tanks, that in this case we should think that which one couldve done the trick!

But you on the other hand, speak as if Shariah law has just burned your churches, and now woman on US can no longer go out with their scirts, and MUST wear Islam specific clothes! And your wifes are afraid of you, and you are afraid of the system too much to dissaobey, and now are here for gathering support in that parade!

Cause even if its United Nations, United Galaxies, or United Universums altogether, that they are appealing their fears of loosing power in paper! NONE will hold against this global mixture thing, that this all seems to be going. And its totalitarianism is bound to fall like the rest of religions, but Im thinking that perhaps it should take some other route instead, since they are aware of these ones and arent allowing it to even touch them way beforehand!

Chris S. (Fez)
03-13-2009, 06:40 AM
But you on the other hand, speak as if Shariah law has just burned your churches, and now woman on US can no longer go out with their scirts, and MUST wear Islam specific clothes! And your wifes are afraid of you, and you are afraid of the system too much to dissaobey, and now are here for gathering support in that parade!
!

You and Jin call me "alarmist" and yet NOWHERE have I suggested any of those things. Taking the U.N. resolution and the Wilders defamation lawsuit and U.K. deportment into consideration, I feel my concerns are measured and more then reasonable.

If anything I think you guys are alarmist on alarmists ;).

Oh well. I can only tell the truth as I see it.

DiedonD
03-13-2009, 06:50 AM
Yes yes, speak out laud. Tell the truth as you see it as you say. Just mind the tone see. You use words like 'threatens' , and any threat has its gravity to be interpreted as you beeing alarmist.

Now look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YxolTgw2xs&feature=related

Now theres a Jewish, Catholic, A proffesor and an Aetheist there. Melting their differences in a twisted ridicule way, and its beeing ridiculed by Ali G, and he has power cause he is closer to humanity cause his very funny. Ali G is Borat and aswell as Bruno for those that dont know of it.

But there isnt a Hoxha there (Islamic preacher), and theres no Budha or Hindu representative neither!

Perhaps its west vs east thing. Perhaps its not just Islam, there are others there aswell that dont find it funny, but rather offensive and dont want to take part in it. And perhaps they have their own better ways of bringing down totalitarianism through ridicule! Or perhaps it wont even be ridicule! Perhaps it works some other way there! Certainly if Christianity had some other population that said 'If you dont ridicule your God in arts, I shall consider you as non interactive and evil' those kinda pre conditions, you too wouldve withholded the downfal of totalitarianism then aswell!

There must be a way, but they should find it in themselves!

Philbert
03-13-2009, 07:07 AM
In most super hero movies sure they show Superman fighting but do they ever actually show what would happen to that persons rib cage if he actually hit them so hard they would fly accross the room into a wall?

No, they don't because it isn't necessary for the story or for the viewer to enjoy the movie.

Iain
03-13-2009, 07:09 AM
I saw the film last night. I thought it was pretty good; visual translation, casting, vfx, everything.

The funny thing is then, that as I left the cinema I wondered if it should have ever been made. The sub plots and narratives, the human stories running alongside the main theme that were inevitably left out were what made the book so compelling in the first place.

Not quite as devastating a loss in book to film adaptation as From Hell but that would take some beating.

Chris S. (Fez)
03-13-2009, 07:11 AM
Now look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YxolTgw2xs&feature=related


"Would you marry her if she were a bit thinner"

Ouch. That poor woman. I can stomach (pun unintended) making fun of beliefs but I cringe when someone ridicules another's physical characteristics.

Iain
03-13-2009, 07:16 AM
No, they don't because it isn't necessary for the story or for the viewer to enjoy the movie.

I found the violence and sex scenes very odd. Breaking arms in two when a right hook would do the trick didn't really seem in keeping with the Niteowl character. I actually looked away after a few of them and I'm not squeamish.

The second sex scene was like watching those dreadful US softcore porn flicks.

DiedonD
03-13-2009, 07:24 AM
"Would you marry her if she were a bit thinner"

Ouch. That poor woman. I can stomach (pun unintended) making fun of beliefs but I cringe when someone ridicules another's physical characteristics.

Well its just a minor thing there with what he seem like is capable of getting away with ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P842Tmi6lrc&feature=related

Chris S. (Fez)
03-13-2009, 07:29 AM
Breaking arms in two when a right hook would do the trick didn't really seem in keeping with the Niteowl character. .

I agree. The film definitely drifted away from the idea that Niteowl and Silk Specter are not superhuman. By making them less vulnerable they became less appealing somehow.

jin choung
03-13-2009, 04:55 PM
Virtually all my posts concentrated on the threat Islam poses to personal freedom

that statement in and of itself is the problem. it does not acknowledge that ISLAM ITSELF can be as benign as christianity - and is practiced as such by many in the u.s.



Please play devils advocate and argue my side for a minute. How do I "detach"?

by not saying things like that first quote. be precise. target extremists. target the behavior of the masses. to target the religion (in exclusion to all other religions) gives you a laser focused vendetta against islam that stands at odds with your intended purpose of defender of freedoms.

evidently, you are not a defender of freedoms against all enemies... just islam.

and again, that tells me you have a personal stake in it.

jin

p.s. listen to that discussion between stephen fry and chris hutchins... talks about many of these issues that you care about. fry makes the observation that "incitement of religious hatred" CAN be akin to incitement of racial hatred. also, as i said, europe is NOT and has never been the USA. england is not either. there are a great many freedoms that are DIFFERENT in the UK.

wilders is a nut. rushdie still resides in the uk and they welcome him.

Kuzey
03-13-2009, 05:03 PM
I don't take anything back.



Look at the post before yours concerning the UN resolution from TODAY. I am not paranoid and certainly not in a frenzy: "Geneva, March 11, 2009 — A new U.N. resolution circulated today by Islamic states would define any questioning of Islamic dogma as a human rights violation, intimidate dissenting voices, and encourage the forced imposition of Sharia law."


I searched the web and I can't find any of this on main news sites, the actual UN site: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/

So, I'll just take it as it is and it looks like the frenzy I described since there is no proof of it outside that site, besides the exact copies on blogs and other non main stream sites. Unlike you I don't believe everything I read without doing research on it. So, unless you link to a main news source I call fake. Btw. in one of those sites it said it was non binding, otherwise this kinda thing should be front news don't you think???



I have addressed your posts calmly and directly, without resorting to ad hominem. Conversely, it seems you are unable or unwilling to answer my questions.


Actually, I have. I said they were civil cases and you don't like it because there is a Muslim involved. They don't seem like extremist Muslims to me, in fact they seem like citizens that love their new adopted country. To become a police in a white society takes guts, it's the very show integration people like you might complain about Muslims, that they stick together and don't learn english etc. etc.



Muslims in the West are too often attempting to change the rule of law to accomodate their beliefs. Lunch menus at public schools are being altered. Foot baths are being installed in publically-subsidized institutions. etc. etc.


So you want them to eat pork and be happy with it. You should take them to court and try to turn them into slaves, I'm sure that would make you happy. Again, these are civil cases, it's the same as supplying wheelchair access to government buildings, libraries etc.



Incredibly, private businesses are being sued for not accomodating muslims and/or for not hiring Muslims. It is not bigoted by default to NOT hire a Muslim or disabled person. It is not bigoted to NOT allow Muslims prayer breaks that are not allowed every other worker. If a private business has a dress code then they should NOT be obligated to change that dress code for Muslims. In my opinion.


Well if they advertise to the fact they are an equal opportunity employer then yes it is, in fact, I do believe there is a law in the West not to discriminate against anybody that can do the job on the base of religion, race or handicap. Not all Muslims wear Muslim dress but then again that would fall under same discrimination laws unless there is a good reason like dress code for firefighters etc. Hey, that police officer had no problem wearing the normal dress code.



Having said all that, would I personally care if a Muslim woman wants to wear a scarf? No! Would I personally make sure my Muslim employees received a Halal meal at the company picnic? Sure. No problem.

My problem is when this accomadation becomes legally mandatory.


Well, Muslims like most other people will not seek court action as their first option. These things only happen only after all normal negotiations break down, it's when only they can't see eye to eye that it goes to court....as it should be with any other matter.



I believe there should be one democratic rule of law that applies to everyone and that Islam/Muslims should not receive special protective status.


Unfortunately, not every idea works in the real world, after all you have people discriminated against and assaulted by other people because of their race, religion etc. So, once there is no racism and bigotry etc. then there won't be laws to protect small parts of the community. There is a reason for it.



Draconian laws drafted 1400 years ago and yet, on tuesday, "the cabinet in Somalia has endorsed a proposal by President Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed to implement Islamic law in the country."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7935879.stm


And what is all those executions in the USA all about?? Somalia is not a modern country and that is no surprise is it, can you point to a modern country??



Problem is the Koran is not a "history book." It is, according to Muslims, comprised entirely of the words of God.


It's part history book, not all. What's wrong with that, isn't the bible meant to be the words of God as well?? One verse can and does gets superseded by another one later on, so taking one single verse out of context is going to lead you in the wrong path.




I personally feel everyone should respect the rule of law. Shariah civil courts have no place in western society IMHO. A person is not a criminal for "offending" a muslim or for not accomodating a muslim. Society should not be legally compelled to cater to Islam.


The law is not perfect as it is, that's why with each generation it gets updated to suit the needs of that generation. Why do have a problem with that...the law always changes.

As for the "Shariah civil courts" where in the world is one in the West, I would like to know. This will never happen, why do you believe people are trying to create "Shariah civil courts" in Western society.




If you are so open minded then why not answer my questions openly and honestly?

I know several Muslims, though I believe they are all nonpracticing. I did date an apostate Muslim who is still a dear friend. She is fiercely feminist and anti-Shariah and I admit I have taken up her cause.

Thanks. I appreciate that. Peace to you too.

That's good to know. You should search on youtube for "Turkish head scarf", it shows both side of the debate. Debates happen all the time here and includes things like a woman's role in society etc. These are all good things and should continue, women should get more parliament positions and management roles in companies. There can never be enough in my view.

Well, it seems we agree on a few things..the Shariah law and feminism. Turkey is a secular country and will do all it can to protect it's democracy. There were huge public demonstrations in the past when people thought that the current Turkish government was trying to creep religion back into law.

http://www.youtube.com./watch?v=2QeR7fd8WXw

I also don't care if a women wears a head scarf or not, as long it's their own choice. Except, when it comes to the Turkish head scarf, that thing is new and is a dress code of the current moderate Islamic based government and therefore a political symbol.

Islam comes in many shapes and colours, you can't compare the Islam in Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt etc. to Islam say in Turkey. Those countries are way behind everything else, first they have to become a modern state/country and then only can Islam develop as it should, through education not force.


Kuzey

jin choung
03-13-2009, 10:58 PM
chris,

may be of interest: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html

was on friday night... really interesting. primarily about the supremacy of "the golden rule" and "compassion", not as pity or feeling bad for someone but to see things from their eyes. some stuff seemed problematic but the meat of her argument was good and interesting. including some very good historical points that most of us aren't aware of.

a good excerpt with important points bolded by me:

"BILL MOYERS: What is it--you've studied this--what is it fundamentalist Muslims fear about the world?

KAREN ARMSTRONG: Basically they have experienced secularism as a profound assault. We had 300 years to develop our secular institutions. Modernization in Europe, and later the United States took a long time. And the new ideas had a chance to trickle down naturally to all different levels of society. They didn't have that chance. Modernization had to take place very quickly. So that, for example, when Ataturk modernized Turkey, he closed down all the Madrassas. He-

BILL MOYERS: The religious schools.

KAREN ARMSTRONG: The religious schools. He forced the Sufi orders, mystics, underground and forced all men and women to wear western clothes. In Iran, the Shahs used to make their soldiers go out with their bayonets, taking off the women's veils in the streets, and ripping them to pieces in front of them. In 1935, the Shah gave his soldiers orders to shoot at hundreds of unarmed demonstrators in one of the holiest shrines in Iran who were peacefully protesting against western dress.

And hundred of Iranians were killed that day. Now, in such a context, secularism doesn't seem the benign ideology that it has been for privileged people, like you and me. It feels like a dead, lethal assault. The most virulent forms of Sunni fundamentalism in Islam developed in the concentration camps, and to which President Nasser had interred thousands of members of the Muslim Brotherhood without trial.

Submitted them to mental and physical torture and execution. Some of them had done nothing more incriminating than handing out leaflets. And in these camps, they became radicalized. One of them was a man called Sayyid Qutb, who entered the camp as a moderate, a student of French and European literature. When he heard Nasser vowing to secularize Egypt and confine Islam to the private sphere on the western model, he looked around this prison. And secularism did not seem benign. It seemed lethal.

And there's something else. There's been a Gallup poll that asked Muslims what they liked most about the West. And what the biggest thing that they all liked was our freedom. They'd like to see more of it themselves. What do they fear most about the West? What do they dislike most about the West?

What worries them most? Their disrespect for our religion. And when they hear ill considered, uneducated remarks about their religion, this is a gift to the extremists who can use it to show that the West is making a crusade against Islam. And it's also endangering our own security.

BILL MOYERS: But the burden is not wholly on the West, is it?

KAREN ARMSTRONG: We have to do our part. And not exaggerate things. This survey also asked--in 35 Muslim countries, it asked them whether they thought the 9/11 attacks were justified. Only seven percent said they were justified. And the reasons they gave were entirely political. Palestine. You know, the Iraq--sanctions in Iraq, et cetera. The occupation of Muslim lands.

These 93, or 92, percent who said they were not justifiable may not have liked western foreign policy. But what they said was their rational for condemning these attacks was religious. They quoted those parts of their scripture which says that to take one life is to take an entire world. That to kill is not justified. We've got to see that. And we've got to see that reflected more in our own press and in our own dealings with this. Otherwise, we're going to build up a bogey, as we did with the Soviets. "

----------------------------------------------------------------------

basically, she speaks about how all fundamentalist movements (in islam as well as christianity) come about from a perceived assault and how antagonistic methods tend to amplify and prolong the war.

good stuff.

jin

-EsHrA-
03-14-2009, 05:42 AM
"As for the "Shariah civil courts" where in the world is one in the West, I would like to know.
This will never happen, why do you believe people are trying to create "Shariah civil courts" in Western society."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2957428/Sharia-law-courts-operating-in-Britain.html

mlon

dobermunk
03-14-2009, 07:03 AM
In any case, because we can openly criticize conservative christian views those views are increasingly losing credibility. Shouldn't Islam be subject to the same criticism?

I'm with you! And I'm with Jin and the others... indeed, I think you're all disagreeing to agree. (So let me join in, eh.)

Islam should be criticized, as should Christianity. And any erosion of the division between religion and state should be adamantly fought. All in agreement. The point of discussion is whether Islam is particularly nasty because of what the Kuran states, or whether the danger lies in the way that text is interpreted. This is where the Christian bible steps up for reference...
after, who wants someone who literally believes that THE person that all people on earth should look to as role-model climbed up to heaven on a ladder or walked on water or got pregnant without sex or science to have direct and enforceable control over the way I live my life?

As to the Watchmen, I personally find it fantastic that the film / comic generates this kind of discussion. Thanks for another great thread, Jin!

dobermunk
03-14-2009, 07:10 AM
KAREN ARMSTRONG: We have to do our part. And not exaggerate things. This survey also asked--in 35 Muslim countries, it asked them whether they thought the 9/11 attacks were justified. Only seven percent said they were justified. And the reasons they gave were entirely political. Palestine. You know, the Iraq--sanctions in Iraq, et cetera. The occupation of Muslim lands.

I remember reading a survey of Americans' reactions to 9/11 and if I recall correctly, the percentage of citizens who believed that the attacks were a result of God punishing New York for vice and sin was greater than seven percent.

Talk about Watchmen-like plot details.

Chris S. (Fez)
03-14-2009, 10:30 AM
The point of discussion is whether Islam is particularly nasty because of what the Kuran states, or whether the danger lies in the way that text is interpreted. This is where the Christian bible steps up for reference...


Interesting. Maybe one reason militant Muslims routinely take the violent verses literally is because their prophet was a WAR LORD who raped, pillaged, enslaved and slaughtered. Jesus was a frickin fisherman (apparently gripped with delusions of divine grandeur).

For instance, in the following New Testament passage the word "Sword" can sensibly be interpreted as merely metaphorical:

“I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. I am sent to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother...” Matthew 10:34-35

Conversely, because Muhammad lead an incredibly violent life it is, tragically, quite logical for extremists to take the following literally: “slay the unbelievers wherever you find them” 9:5

This is of course ignoring completely the barbaric book that is the First Testament. Indeed, I think the Koran could use a second testament...

Jin, thank you for that link. Very, very interesting indeed (what little I have read so far). Kuzey, thank you for your thoughtful response. I feel this thread has finally evolved into an honest, open discussion.

I will try to respond to your posts later. Like most attached geeks, I am insanely grateful to even have a girlfriend and can't afford NOT to spend quality time with her when I can.

Till then, have a nice weekend all.

Dexter2999
03-14-2009, 10:52 AM
Christian fundamentalists bomb abortion clinics. Some upstanding Christian folk are often racists or homophobes. The Chistian Church has much to be ashamed of with it's history of the Salem Witch Hunts, the Spanish Inquisition, and the Crusades.

Look, it isn't that God is bad nor is it necessarily a practitioner. It is the power structure of the church and the authority of the pious and the desire of those with something missing in their lives who hope to find enrichment/enlightenment through some cause.

Many an atrocity is performed in God's name no matter the belief structure.

jasonwestmas
03-14-2009, 12:13 PM
Christian fundamentalists bomb abortion clinics. Some upstanding Christian folk are often racists or homophobes. The Chistian Church has much to be ashamed of with it's history of the Salem Witch Hunts, the Spanish Inquisition, and the Crusades.

Look, it isn't that God is bad nor is it necessarily a practitioner. It is the power structure of the church and the authority of the pious and the desire of those with something missing in their lives who hope to find enrichment/enlightenment through some cause.

Many an atrocity is performed in God's name no matter the belief structure.

Exactly, it's called playing up the words and taking things out of context to suit one's own agenda.

Not to state the obvious but this happens inside AND outside of spiritual/religious doctrine and cultures. All you need is a historical figure head who wrote some stuff down in the name of "Improving the world" (There are many of them) to use as an example and it doesn't necessarily require superstition, a flamboyant imagination or a supernatural deity even though those things are used as a face to interest those who want to believe in forces beyond the grave. Reguardless ANYTHING "good" can be used for destructive purposes.

Kuzey
03-14-2009, 05:22 PM
"As for the "Shariah civil courts" where in the world is one in the West, I would like to know.
This will never happen, why do you believe people are trying to create "Shariah civil courts" in Western society."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2957428/Sharia-law-courts-operating-in-Britain.html

mlon

I knew they were thinking of doing it but thought the public reaction would have killed the project. Interesting to see how it develops.

Kuzey

Kuzey
03-14-2009, 05:24 PM
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html

good stuff.

jin

Wow...what a great thinker, thanks Jin. :thumbsup:

Kuzey

Kuzey
03-14-2009, 06:04 PM
Interesting. Maybe one reason militant Muslims routinely take the violent verses literally is because their prophet was a WAR LORD who raped, pillaged, enslaved and slaughtered. Jesus was a frickin fisherman (apparently gripped with delusions of divine grandeur).


Actually, it made sense what Karen Armstrong was saying, it's political and a reaction to what people go through. I mentioned all this the last time this came up, about culture, politics, people's need to justify their own agenda etc.



Conversely, because Muhammad lead an incredibly violent life it is, tragically, quite logical for extremists to take the following literally: “slay the unbelievers wherever you find them” 9:5

This is of course ignoring completely the barbaric book that is the First Testament. Indeed, I think the Koran could use a second testament...


They don't actually take it literally but corrupt it for their own use....there's a difference. Because you need to read the verse(s) before the above example and several verses after it to get a better picture. Taking things out of context gets people into trouble.

I'm not sure about the second testament, there are only a hand full verses of what can be misused by people to make the Koran look violent, when there is 6236 verses in the Koran...that's 6224 non violent verses. Before you go jumping and what not the figure 12 is just guess, I'm sure you can't find more than that.

I'm pretty much out of this as that interview sums up everything I've been trying to say...but not as eloquently.

Kuzey

jasonwestmas
03-14-2009, 06:29 PM
Originally Posted by jin choung View Post
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html




Good ideas about what religions do through their ego and politics, though she completely fails to rightly divide the different forms of context within the scriptures. Also saying things like "The Bible says nothing about what God actually is" is pretty absurd. It is true that there are passages in the Bible that are meant to be actual events and then there are symbolic prophecies, then of course there are also symbolic parables, it's pretty easy to tell them apart if studied at all. So if that is the issue of interpretation. . .well people should learn more about what they are reading and getting themselves into. Bible stuff aside, knowing what is actually written to you today and what was meant for another people is extremely important. But in the case of the Bible there are entirely different Gospels (Instructions from God) within the same book that are all related but those Gospels are not intended to coexist in the present. . . it's meant to be a transitional and transformational book.

jin choung
03-14-2009, 08:04 PM
Maybe one reason militant Muslims routinely take the violent verses literally is because their prophet was a WAR LORD who raped, pillaged, enslaved and slaughtered. Jesus was a frickin fisherman (apparently gripped with delusions of divine grandeur).

well as i said before and as karen conveniently brings up, david, joshua, the kings and the judges of the old testament were warlords as well. and never mind rape and pillage, they killed to the last man woman and child.

GENOCIDE in other words.

and though Jesus was nothing but a carpenter's son, his ministry was not about contradicting or repudiating what went on before (in terms of the law of moses, he claimed to be the fullfillment and not the antithesis). and the christian claim has always been that Jesus and YHWH are and have always been the SAME GOD.

so sorry, christianity (and certainly judaism) are in the same boat or worse as islam when it comes to warlords and crimes against humanity.


For instance, in the following New Testament passage the word "Sword" can sensibly be interpreted as merely metaphorical:

“I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. I am sent to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother...” Matthew 10:34-35

it's not just SENSIBLE to interpret that metaphorically, it is REQUIRED because jesus HIMSELF is using it metaphorically by definition. he is not contrasting a sword to a spear or a shield or a mocassin - he is contrasting it to an ABSTRACT IDEA - peace. he HIMSELF is using it metaphorically.


Conversely, because Muhammad lead an incredibly violent life it is, tragically, quite logical for extremists to take the following literally: “slay the unbelievers wherever you find them” 9:5

and this is again contradictory to other verses calling for peace, tolerance and friendship even with "infidels" and other verses that talk about about "taking one life is the equivalent of taking all". you can't use your verses to argue a point if opposing points are stated in the SAME DOCUMENT.


This is of course ignoring completely the barbaric book that is the First Testament. Indeed, I think the Koran could use a second testament...

not trying to be a pendantic dick here but you're talking about the "old" and "new" testaments of the christian bible right? it took me a while to figure out what you were referring to.

anyhoo, as i said, christianity does NOT get off because nobody repudiates or CAN REPUDIATE the genocide depicted in the old testament.

and if you look just a little bit, you get all kinds of really horrid horrid excuses for what made it ok... (!!!)

(i.e. swords were the least painful way for children to be killed at the time...!!! i fing sh1t you not....)

jin

jin choung
03-14-2009, 08:06 PM
Also saying things like "The Bible says nothing about what God actually is" is pretty absurd.

she has some problematic points in general but in this case, i think it may just be imprecise wording on her part if what you quoted was indeed her precise wording. she's specifically talking about the creation story in genesis when she says this - and in that context, she's correct.

she's saying the creation account doesn't "properly introduce the character of God"... likes, dislikes, favorite movie, shoe size, temperament, etc... just the name God and He does all this stuff.

which is true. in genesis, God is somewhat of a tabula rasa.

jin

jin choung
03-14-2009, 08:17 PM
in thinking over her interview, the prime points karen armstrong seems to make is:

1. the priamacy of the golden rule and how it really could solve all our problems
2. application of newton's third law of motion to human psychology - for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

good points.

jin

jasonwestmas
03-15-2009, 08:54 AM
she has some problematic points in general but in this case, i think it may just be imprecise wording on her part if what you quoted was indeed her precise wording. she's specifically talking about the creation story in genesis when she says this - and in that context, she's correct.

she's saying the creation account doesn't "properly introduce the character of God"... likes, dislikes, favorite movie, shoe size, temperament, etc... just the name God and He does all this stuff.

which is true. in genesis, God is somewhat of a tabula rasa.

jin

Ah yes, if she is reading things from left to right in a linear fashion she won't really know what the character of God is till she gets deep into the Old Testament. There are many relationships between people and God in the book of Genesis, it just isn't explored within that book, the way the Bible is intended to be read is not linear at all. Genesis is a tabula rasa, very vague and objective.

DiedonD
03-16-2009, 12:54 AM
Right Ive just seen the movie now! Id say that it has a rather unexpected ending!

Unexpected but not unheard of! Having a common threat, surely would unite the world type of thing!

The cost was duscustingly high though!

Now... Whats the connection of the movie with religion?

jasonwestmas
03-16-2009, 06:54 AM
Now... Whats the connection of the movie with religion?

Armstrong was saying in the video that Religion has become more about the Ego and political status than it has been about the core values of the scripture their beliefs are based on. On value being compassion which seems to be completely lost in these religious hierarchy's of Islam and Christianity. She's right on about that.

Kuzey
03-16-2009, 07:59 AM
Jason...I'm sure DiedonD meant the film in the title of this thread :D

Kuzey

jasonwestmas
03-16-2009, 08:09 AM
Jason...I'm sure DiedonD meant the film in the title of this thread :D

Kuzey

LOL! Well to rephrase then. . .this thread went from political oppression and how religious groups always seem to have a play in it as if religion is something more than a political group when in fact it really isn't. A secular political group can do just as much damage through, lying, guilt, fear, greed strife etc. The movie has a political basis and the need for heroes seems to be on the table and the movie kinda debates that but very vaguely.

dsol
03-16-2009, 09:11 AM
Saw Watchmen last night with my GF. I'd already read the comic which is sublime, but I thought the film was pretty much as good as anyone could reasonably expect (given the dense source material). In fact, I thought it was a fantastic piece of cinema. I was entertained and most importantly not bored for its (long) running time.

I think it's fair to say that opinions are divided though. A few people walked out of the cinema halfway through. I guess they must have been expecting a more typical superhero movie - which it was anything but.

Areas where the film fell down... well:

Adrian Veidt was a bit of a cypher in this film, which is a tragedy given his importance in the story. There was virtually no backstory allowed for him, which meant his motivations were a bit nebulous. Crucially, it also made him far less sympathetic. In the comics, he's a hero, who does a terrible thing for what he perceives as a good cause. I'm sure it was cut for time. Look forward to seeing how the director's cut changes this.

The ending. By changing the threat from an Alien Invasion, well I didn't think it worked. And the true horror of the event in new york didn't really have the same level of impact without the grisly scenes of horror in the comic (the one time where you really needed to see bodies).

Apart from that, it was all pretty much note-perfect awesomeness. Rorschact was perfect.

EDIT: and I loved the violence :) hey folks - it's only a movie!

theo
03-16-2009, 10:31 AM
I am rudely interrupting a theology/philosophy discussion but somehow I feel the urge to unequivocally state that Malin Ackerman is, indeed, man's best friend and, perhaps, the main reason to throw dollars at Watchmen.

I see few points worth haggling with by the OP. As usual Jin is agonizingly long-winded and precise in his reviews which makes them noteworthy and useful.

I am a loving, kind, sweet, delicious sort of human being inhabited by a contradictory fetish that enjoys viewing beautiful women within the gritty ethos of very violent films.

The Watchman certainly has my respect for pulling few punches in terms of extreme fantasy violence. Add this to the latex suit worn by Ackerman and my primal urges are encapsulated in a rather cozy entertainment bundle.

But, before I fall victim to preconceived notions about my whereabouts on the evolutionary tree of life I think I shall balance my decided appreciation of the Watchmen edge with a decided distaste for the Watchmen sense of believability and plot.

Rorschach's mask is entirely absurd since the fellow is gifted with nothing but luck and lunacy. The action involving his flame-to-a-can defense against the swat team was a cheap directorial shot aimed at enlarging Rorschach's so-called unique adaptability, which for me established only that he is normal, desperate and adept- nothing more.

Nite Owl and Silk Spectre's spontaneous traipse in Owl's rotund and aged craft to save conveniently burning folk in a nearby tall building ended up coming off as contrived and pointless to me, especially since Silk is stupidly dropped into the burning building from the top whereupon she runs to the exact room where the ship currently hovers near an open window, merely waiting for extraction of convenient victims upon Silk's breathless arrival...ooookayyyy.

Much more of this type of hard-to-justify action abounds in Watchmen.

But, it is a beautiful work with a lot of eye candy which could have been a masterpiece if the plot could have simply just served up a much smaller slice of plot pie with an ending that seemed less philosophical and more revelatory.

I'll probably still buy it, though, when it comes out on Blu-ray.

DiedonD
03-17-2009, 01:19 AM
Armstrong was saying in the video that Religion has become more about the Ego and political status than it has been about the core values of the scripture their beliefs are based on. On value being compassion which seems to be completely lost in these religious hierarchy's of Islam and Christianity. She's right on about that.

Good thing I didnt went back and read all threads, including Jin (Kazama's ;) ) endless posts with that one :)

I was going like! Whose Armstrong? In which part of Watchmen video did he say that? Armstrong is a woman?! To name just a few arising questions with that :thumbsup:

I think the movie reassured the old theory that having a common threat would make us closer to one another. Since Global Governance is attempting to happen! The threat needs to be on a Global scale then!

But why kill of so many innocent humans!!!!!! :thumbsdow

Couldnt those unique A-Bombs, that otherwise noone knew how to deactivite, pose as a significant wolrdwide threat!!!

For me its never justified the murder of God knows how many! Even be it for temporarily World Peace!!!

theo
03-17-2009, 06:26 AM
For me its never justified the murder of God knows how many! Even be it for temporarily World Peace!!!

The ending left me as lifeless as the sacrificed. With horrific precision one of our superhero gods forces his lofty ideology upon an unwilling populace which is then touted as a climactic relief paving the way into a new age. :devil:

Serling
03-21-2009, 05:38 PM
Just saw Watchmen: Flat, virtually devoid of any characters with which to empathize. Stuffed with lots of unnecessary backstories and subplots which bog the movie down in minutiae. Not a terrible movie but not great either. Worth seeing if only to remind me of how truly awesome Iron Man was.

Serling
03-21-2009, 05:55 PM
One final note:

The Dark Knight and this movie both end on a note that leaves humanity hating and uniting against each film's heroes (if you can consider Dr. Manhattan a hero for stopping Rorshach the way he did). In so doing, both movies lead us to believe that peace and justice come not through hard work and personal sacrifice, but through deception: both movies' "unwashed masses" are left to believe a lie. I hated that about the Dark Knight, for it leaves us with this message: "the ends justify the means."

This movie is redeemed for me - in the end - that Rorshach's journal is found and will - presumably - be printed, letting people know the truth of what happened, and how their "peace" is based on the machinations and deceit of a madman. When truth prevails there is always hope that justice will follow. That's a much better message than "the ends justify the means."

Dexter2999
03-21-2009, 11:37 PM
I saw it. I was as true to the comic as the movie could be given the time constraints.
Rorshach was my favorite. I bet the 3 1/2 hour directors cut will be dead on if and when it hits DVD.

I didn't the Comedian's mustache...looked fake in a few of the shots. I didn't care either way for Nixon's nose. I didn't get the use of 60's and 70's music when the timeframe was supposed to be 80's.

I thought DR. Manhatten's voice was going to bug me but it didn't. Wasn't what I was imagining when I read the comic but it was okay.

Overall, not a stellar movie but he did stay true to the comic and I give props to that. It's a classic. (the comic, not the movie)

LightWuv
03-22-2009, 12:56 AM
I think that for those of us who have read the comic, it's quite interesting to see what people who haven't think about the adaption.

"That movie was way too long! They should have written a book instead! Oh, some guy named Tolkien alrady did?" :D

I'm not saying there's such a thing as invalid criticism. It's just weird to be on this side of the proceedings, too.

For those who were wondering about Rorshach's mask, it's supposed to be liquid trapped between two layers of polyester or something, made to respond to heat and pressure.

Iain
03-22-2009, 06:14 AM
Just saw Watchmen: Flat, virtually devoid of any characters with which to empathize. Stuffed with lots of unnecessary backstories and subplots which bog the movie down in minutiae. Not a terrible movie but not great either. Worth seeing if only to remind me of how truly awesome Iron Man was.

I'm not sure what was awesome about Iron Man other than his suit and some 'cool' explosions.
If you empathised with a spoilt billionaire who suddenly realised that he should help people or his utterly boring love interest who wasn't as glamorous as his usual conquests but was nice, then the 'unnecessary' depth of Watchmen would probably seem like minutiae.

The ending of Iron Man was predictable and had been done before a million times. A 10 year old could come up with that "bad guy has temporary advantage over good guy-will he win?" scenario.
But hey-at least it was happy, right?

Serling
03-22-2009, 08:48 PM
"If you empathised with a spoilt billionaire who suddenly realised that he should help people or his utterly boring love interest who wasn't as glamorous as his usual conquests but was nice, then the 'unnecessary' depth of Watchmen would probably seem like minutiae."

Watchmen, "deep"? Not hardly. Emotionally tepid with no character with which to empathize. Half the cast looked like they were sleep-walking through it. And why the hell did they choose a guy that looked like Chevy Chase to play Nite Owl? Kept expecting Judge Smales to show up any minute.

Ozymandias had a flat, emotionless tone superseded only by Dr. Manhattan himself. Probably couldn't help it. Not a lot of room to emote in a completely 1 dimensional character like that. Rorshach was the only character who displayed any emotion; who seemed driven by anything visceral and communicated it well with the viewer. And get this: he was the guy with the mask! What the hell does that tell you about the rest of the performances???

The only "depth" the movie had was a trite foray into the "ends justify the means" discussion (seen it before in better movies). But it took almost 3 hours to get to that point. Sorry, the story plodded along, saddled with a lot of minutiae that works well in novels but not so much on the big screen.

Like I said, not terrible but not great. Gets a big "meh" which is disappointing considering the hype it got.

Dexter2999
03-22-2009, 10:45 PM
You are correct that there are many things that played well in the graphic novel that didn't translate to the screen.

Personally, I felt the same way when I saw DR ZHIVAGO. Almost four hours long and it seemed to wander all over the place. It tried to be a love story. It tried to be a war story. It went on and on and on... The only saving grace of the whole film was the cinematography. People think I'm nuts. The book won a Pulitzer. It is a masterpiece. Meh. Whatever.

There are little things in the graphic novel that got a mere nod in the movie. In part that is tied to the need to expedite things to keep the running time down. There is a huge chunk of the graphic novel that takes place at the news stand that is in one scene of the movie. It establishes social commentary. It sets up Rorschac as the only guy that reads a certain paper. That paper is the one he mails his journal to in the end. If you hadn't read all that ahead of time, it just doesn't make as much sense.

I have read the comic a few times. I am in different mindset from the viewer who has never read it. I draw the connections that the movie omits. I know the back story. (Same thing when SERENITY came out. I had been fan of the series.)

The Psychiatrist in the comic is a humanitarian. The one in the edited version of the movie comes off as more judgemental.

I did get that Ozmandius was more charismatic in the comic. The performance was thin.

Dr. Manahatten was intentionaly flat. It was kind of dead on to the comic. You aren't supposed to get him. He is supposed to be super intellectual on a level humans can't comprehend. He sees all his life in a single moment. His whole existence is boredome to some extent.

zed1000
03-25-2009, 05:18 PM
I struggled to stay awake with this one.It felt really long and drawn out.You know when you sit their restless,thinking is this thing nearly finished?I really enjoyed the start to the film and setup,and the most interesting character was "The Comedian" After that for me it nosed dived.:thumbsdow

DiedonD
03-26-2009, 02:33 AM
One of the watchmen that after they got seperated and basically put down in various ways, one of them, looked alot like Captain Amerika that was found dead.

Was it really him?

LightWuv
03-26-2009, 03:02 AM
Did anyone watch the movie, then read the comic?

jin choung
03-26-2009, 03:08 AM
Was it really him?

no.

not only would it be copyright issues but super duper copyright issues because DC's watchmen can have nothing whatsoever to do with MARVEL's captain america.

jin

jin choung
03-26-2009, 03:09 AM
Did anyone watch the movie, then read the comic?

good question.

i am among the comic first crowd and i'd be interested on their take as well.

jin

DiedonD
03-26-2009, 03:18 AM
Did anyone watch the movie, then read the comic?

Only movie here. Most popular comics around here were: Zagor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zagor), Marty Misteriee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Myst%C3%A8re), a smart guy with white stripy hair on the sides, usually wearing black that dont know his name, Them two cowboy brothers, the eldest with mustache, and a young cowboy that kicked ***, these of which I dont recall their names.

There was very little of:Superman, Alf etc.

And I dont think Ill be reading Watchmen comic books for myself.

But the guy did look quite alot like Captain America. Thus I asked.

LightWuv
03-26-2009, 10:35 AM
Fair enough. :)

Anybody else see the movie first, and then check out the comic?

LightWuv
04-02-2009, 10:56 AM
Apparently not. :sleeping:

dsol
04-02-2009, 10:58 AM
nope, but I had a few friends with me who hadn't read the comic. They liked the film.

LightWuv
04-03-2009, 07:06 AM
nope, but I had a few friends with me who hadn't read the comic. They liked the film.

I'm sure you've alrady recommended the graphic novel to them. Make sure they post here after reading it :D