Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Watchmen TV Series

BrackBrack Posts: 799
Hand over the reigns Geoff Johns, it's Damon Lindelof's turn to miss the point of Watchmen!



«1

Comments

  • DARDAR Posts: 1,115
    After what he did with the Leftovers in Lindelof I trust
  • MihawkMihawk Posts: 380
    Seems like it's set after the Canon of the Movie.
  • mphilmphil Posts: 431
    @Mihawk That's what I was confused about. The Rorschach masks makes sense that it would be.
  • TravisTravis Posts: 32
    I've read its either several years or 10 years after the original. Per Esquire "the series sees a world where superheroes no longer exist. But, as the trailer shows, it turns out, they were just "hibernating."
  • David_DDavid_D Posts: 3,857
    Does... does the vigilante group actually call themselves "The Watchmen", and that is why they make tick-tock noises?

    Because that actually sounds like something from a parody about people adapting Watchmen.
  • ToneboneTonebone Posts: 860
    Pitch Meeting:

    "So here's the thing... we have the license for Watchmen. But we're not going to do the Watchmen. We're going to do AROUND the Watchmen, and maybe mention the Watchmen, but not do the Watchmen. We will hint at the Watchmen, and allude to the Watchmen, and obviously call it Watchmen, but not show the Watchmen.

    We will probably use the color palette from the movie, of course."
  • MattMatt Posts: 4,374

    Who watches the Watchmen? People who are slow to realize it’s not Watchmen.

  • luckymustardluckymustard Posts: 927
    What if "Watchmen" isn't ever said in this show? Minutemen and Crimebusters are the two groups of vigilante/masks/capes from the book. It was the movie that didn't use Crimebusters, and instead, within universe, where they called themselves Watchmen. This show is said to be within the same universe as the comic, not the movie.
  • DARDAR Posts: 1,115
    First episode premiered last night. Thought it was really good. You definitely have had to read Watchmen because it throws you right in to it.
  • BrackBrack Posts: 799
    Tonebone said:

    Pitch Meeting:

    "So here's the thing... we have the license for Watchmen. But we're not going to do the Watchmen. We're going to do AROUND the Watchmen, and maybe mention the Watchmen, but not do the Watchmen. We will hint at the Watchmen, and allude to the Watchmen, and obviously call it Watchmen, but not show the Watchmen.

    We will probably use the color palette from the movie, of course."

    This was dangerously close, except it was

    "we have the license for Watchmen. But we're not allowed to credit Alan Moore on the Watchmen. We're going to do interviews AROUND Alan Moore, and constantly mention Alan Moore in them, but not mention him in the credits. We will hint at Alan Moore, and allude to Alan Moore, and obviously call it the Watchmen, but not show Alan Moore".
  • DARDAR Posts: 1,115
    I thought Moore had a long standing clause that his name be left out of any filmed works of his.
  • BrackBrack Posts: 799
    DAR said:

    I thought Moore had a long standing clause that his name be left out of any filmed works of his.

    Yes, that's why they've been mentioning him in interviews to get around that.
  • VertighostVertighost Posts: 286

    I read a Times interview with Lindelof where he said he was “complicit in white supremacy” so I will be avoiding it.

  • DARDAR Posts: 1,115
    Where Moore was complicit?
  • Nope. That Lindelof is admitting that he's "complicit in white supremacy"... because he's white. Me too? New York Times article.
  • VertighostVertighost Posts: 286
    edited October 21

    Sounds like a pretty horrible thing to accuse someone of, right? No Lindelof said he -Lindelof - was complicit in white supremacy. Now unless he’s been unwittingly supporting the kind of racists where such an extreme term - and all it connotes - would be accurate, it’s only reasonable to assume he believes most of us - including Moore - are also “complicit”. (The rest of the interview only reinforces this.) I don’t want to support the work of someone who talks like a brainwashed cult member.

  • DARDAR Posts: 1,115
  • Yep. Fair enough.
    But I don't go into a Michael Jackson forum/thread saying I don't want to support his work. I don't go into a Woody Allen forum/thread saying I don't want to support his work.
  • VertighostVertighost Posts: 286
    edited October 22

    @luckymustard, Um, Okay?? For the record, this isn’t a Damon Lindelof forum. It’s a comic book Watchmen tv series forum. Or maybe you’ve never seen anyone on here go into a movie/series thread and write “I’m not seeing that for x reason!” It’s not uncommon.

  • VertighostVertighost Posts: 286
    edited October 23

    @ChrisBeckett, I agree with everything you said except for the fact that complicit “might” be too harsh a word. I also disagree with the term “white supremacy” as does the dictionary and the vernacular (except for certain individuals trying to change what it means and acting surprised that everyone else isn’t on board). I also don’t agree that this country has an inability to have frank discussions about race. What I see is a certain very vocal group of new liberals (and I’m liberal) trying to distort language in the most invidious - and polarizing - way possible to make points that otherwise wouldn’t be disputed by folks like me. Why not just say “Hey I know I’m very lucky to be white and don’t have to deal with the hassles of being discriminated against - or worse - on a daily basis”. But it’s never phrased that way.

    These people (the ones who speak in the most charged way possible and then are shocked that people don’t agree with them) seem to believe that “words matter” unless they’re the ones making the semantic distortions. And no I don’t think you’re a commie pinko snowflake, but I do think that unless liberals start saying “Why don’t you phrase that in a less invidious - less overstated/charged way” this country is going to become more and more polarized no matter who’s in office. But to each his own.

  • Why not just say “Hey I know I’m very lucky to be white and don’t have to deal with the hassles of being discriminated against - or worse - on a daily basis”. But it’s never phrased that way.

    Why not? Because it's long. The phrase that means that exact thing is white privilege.
  • MattMatt Posts: 4,374
    edited October 30

    What the fuck, I’ll jump into this fray. I’m an independent party voter, though I’ve identified more as a Libertarian. I lean more to the right fiscally, but more to the left socially. I didn’t vote for Trump, but there are some things he’s done I agree with & some I don’t; just like I did with any prior President.

    With full disclosure out of the way, I’ll add we’ll never get past racism, sexism, or any “-ism”. People want to blame Trump for fracturing & dividing the country, but it’s always been about tribalism.

    The “-isms” have become so perverted, exaggerated, and low hanging fruit, it’s water down when an actual “-ism” occurs. That’s an injustice to legitimate victims. I just worked a case where a company employee asked a customer if everything was okay. He was just standing in front of the coffee display, which typically means the tanks need to be refilled. The customer’s response “why wouldn’t I be okay? Because I’m black?”

    When the manager came over to intervene, she also got accused of being a racist. No baseline context, but that customer was certain he was being discriminated against because of his skin color.

    And there’s no discussions anymore. We’ve got knee jerk social media making conclusions before solid information is available. We’ve got people who want their strife to supersede the next person’s. No doubt there is racial oppression, but I’m betting a gay Muslim feels oppressed. I’m betting a transgender person feels oppressed. I’m betting a female working with all men feels oppressed. I’m betting that poor dude arrested for a handy at the Orchids of Asia feels oppressed because he’s got a public defender & Bob Kraft has spent millions on a legal team. That’s not to take away from racial oppression, that’s to acknowledge there’s a lot of people who feel oppressed for various reasons and not just dismissing their daily challenges.

    We can do the same with “privilege”. Are quotas not now being seen as positives? Are there not shirts & posters that read “Believe Women” because a woman wouldn’t lie about being a victim? Are there not specific organizations geared toward helping specific people? That’s not to say there is zero privilege in being a straight, WASP, “white” male with wealth.

    Watching how our society has been burning the last several years, I can say it’s become about envy. “I don’t have what that person has, because I’m oppressed & that person is privileged”.

    I can’t stand it when “white” people feel the need to apologize for the behavior of one or a few “white” shitstains. I don’t apologize for who I am, nor do I treat someone differently because that person isn’t the same. I don’t think someone should feel less then someone like me because that person isn’t like me either.

  • Matt said:

    I can’t stand it when “white” people feel the need to apologize for the behavior of one or a few “white” shitstains. I don’t apologize for who I am, nor do I treat someone differently because that person isn’t the same. I don’t think someone should feel less then someone like me because that person isn’t like me either.

    You explain what you don't do. What do you do?
    You say you "can't stand it when...", but what do you do because of that?
  • VertighostVertighost Posts: 286
    edited October 26
    @luckymustard, for the record, he did not use the term "white privilege". He said "complicit in white supremacy". You seem to believe that your "Whatever, it's all the same thing, get over it" approach to language on a topic like this is not unnecessarily polarizing and not contradictory to the caution people like Lindelöf always demand on topics like this. "Words matter" unless I'm talking about the problems whites don't have to face. Then, I'm going to forego terms like discrimination, racism and unconscious bias which far more people understand and reframe it all as "complicit in white supremacy". What he - and others like him - hope to accomplish by talking in the most extreme way possible, I don't know. IMO equating yourself (and by extension, other "complicit" white people) to whoever funds Nazi skinheads is self-evidently divisive.
  • MattMatt Posts: 4,374
    edited October 30

    I don’t apologize for another person’s narrow minded idiocy. Be it Weinstein because I’m a male too or Roof because my olive skin groups me into his ethnicity. I have zero to do with those Ass wipes. That’s like expecting my friend’s ex-husband (not at the time) to apologize for 911 because he’s Middle Eastern.

    I don’t make blanket statements about specific people*, so I’m not going to be apologize as if I’m apart of someone’s.

    I do, however, continue to adapt. I want conversation. I want to expand what I know with what I need to know. I can in turn, teach my kids how to be open minded. Right now, someone says something deemed offensive, we strip, tar, feather, brand the “-ism” onto him/her, then exile the person. There’s no conversation about why it’s offensive or what can be learned from it.

    I think Nazis, alt-right, white supremists are scum on society. They spew nothing but verbal pollution into society. Having said that, it I really believe in equality, then I can’t agree to censor them (provided they are operating legally; if not, unleash the hounds). If those foot fungi (legally) gather & spit their idiocy, I can talk to my kids about it. I can explain why their mother & I disagree with them. I have control over THAT conversation.

    If we think shaming them, censoring them, & sentencing them to exile is going to irradiate them, we’re in for a rude awakening. Then, there’s a chance my kids get exposed to they’re perverse message without me. I have no control over that conversation. Maybe they learn about that message from someone who thinks the same. Now my kids could be part of the problem instead of part of the solution.


    ** mostly true. I do make blanket statements & criticize assholes. The problem is, asshole have successfully infiltrated every demographic. They’re chameleons. Need to be vigil for them for when they reveal themselves.

  • DARDAR Posts: 1,115
    Btw the second episode was also good
  • i_am_scifii_am_scifi Posts: 616

    So was the third.

  • i_am_scifii_am_scifi Posts: 616
    edited November 4

    Also, here's the full Lindeloff quote, taken in context, with follow-ups. This makes it very clear what he meant by being "complacent." He is well aware of the privileges that come with being white, and the challenges of telling this kind of story that relies so heavily on race, even though he himself is white. Having a diverse writer's room is indeed one way to get around this, which is what he has done.


    Race is at the center of the story. Nuclear holocaust was the big existential threat in the comic, but here it’s white supremacy. Why did you make that choice?

    LINDELOF What’s the equivalent now of impending nuclear war? What’s creating the big cultural anxiety? For me, it’s the anxiety of a reckoning. Not because there are white supremacists, but because I am complicit in white supremacy. Because I’m a white man, I’ve gotten to take this entirely different path through life.


    So that reckoning, that process, the identification of white supremacy as a bad guy in a superhero comic book that could not be defeated — the Klan wears masks, but why are they never the villains in a superhero story? Those ideas felt like natural fits for “Watchmen.” The original is provocative, it’s dangerous, it’s groundbreaking, it’s political, it’s unsafe. The idea for the show had to check all those boxes.

    How did you arrive at that idea?

    LINDELOF I had read Ta-Nehisi Coates’s Atlantic essay, “The Case for Reparations,” and it totally shifted my perception of United States history. He mentioned Tulsa, the massacre of Black Wall Street, which I had never heard of. Tulsa just felt like Krypton to me. It felt like the destruction of a world. It felt like this peaceful utopia with all these intelligent people who had built this safe haven, and it was just destroyed overnight. I was like, “That’s the idea.”

    I was really nervous about it. I didn’t know if it was a story that I necessarily should be telling. I went into HBO and I said to them, “This is kind of what I’m thinking,” and they really gelled to the idea.

    Is it a story you should be telling?

    LINDELOF That’s not a question I’m qualified to answer. But I will say I’ve spent a lot of time driving around looking at billboards and going, like, Oh, there’s only white people on these billboards. And then I’m like, Oh, I’ve made a career of basically putting white people on billboards, and I keep making television shows about really attractive men in their mid-40s who are having existential and spiritual crises. I’m in a position to do something different and this is something that I care about, too.

    I’m not deflecting responsibility, but there were 12 people in the writers’ room and only four of them, at any one time, were white men. So this question that you asked was vigorously debated over and over again. But if the criticism is “this wasn’t your story to tell,” but a lot of people learn what happened in Tulsa almost 100 years ago as a result, I’m willing to take that hit. Not because I’m a white savior, but because I think this is a compelling story worth telling.

    KING Is it O.K. for him to be telling that story? Well, Damon is American. This story is American history. Has there been revisionist history? Absolutely. That’s the reason we have so many things stuffed away and so much pain and fear that hasn’t been addressed. I feel lucky to be a part of pushing people to look at it, and I am happy that Damon has created the opportunity for us to do this.

Sign In or Register to comment.