Sorta OT: The sacred cows of fandom
Mar. 5th, 2009 06:54 pmCount me among those who are not running out this weekend to see Watchmen. I've read parts of the original graphic novel and while it was something for its time--this was just before the late '80s/'90s tsunami of adult-oriented, R-rated graphic novels/comics --it just wasn't my cup of chai. I can't get into Alan Moore's nihilistic view of the world. The premise is an interesting one: what kind of nut dresses up in costumes and goes on vigilante missions anyway, and isn't it scary someone who's off-kilter has immense power at the same time? But Moore explores these ideas from the bleakest and yuckiest angle possible.
Moreover, the older I get, the less inclined I am to lose three valuable hours of my time witnessing such spectacles as a dead six-year-old girl's leg getting nommed upon by dogs or a blue man's CGI junk hanging out in your face. No. Thank. You. I could barely sit through the odious Sin City, one of those rare special films where there's so much brutality onscreen you start to feel brutalized just by watching it.
I am however aware there are many a fanboy eager for this kind of entertainment and Watchmen is one of those things among comics fans that you absolutely must adore in order to be taken seriously within those circles. With the film's buzz, that has extended to film geeks as well. And when that happens, God help anyone who dares to offer a differing opinion. There's a blogger who did a review of the film yesterday and it was abundantly clear she was disgusted by the film. Some of what she wrote in her review was unfair and over-the-top in the same way Roger Ebert's review of Fanboys unfairly swiped at SW fandom (which he later clarified/apologized for). But many of the responses she got were appalling. None of these people have yet seen the movie while this blogger had, but that didn't matter. She dared to criticize something they consider untouchable, and that's the presumed awesomeness of Watchmen.
It's not the first time something like this happened. When film critic Richard Roeper wrote some less-than-complimentary things about one of the LOTR movies some years ago, he got death threats. Look at Jimmy Mac's personal and unnecessary flame out of Ebert from a couple of weeks ago (that was for a slam on SW fans mind you, not the movies themselves).
We've all read infuriating things written about SW over the years and I've responded to quite a few of them. But I also know that the credibility of your response depends on what you say and how you say it. Moreover, you have to remind yourself that even if you think the guy is full of crap and a moron and you wouldn't pee on him to save him if he were on fire, he does have a right to his opinion and not everyone in the world is going to love whatever it is the way you do. The blogger who reviewed Watchmen was very specific in why she didn't like the movie. Anybody who has read the original book has to know it's not for everyone.
Fans are very attached to what they love and they're protective of it. But I also know the backlash can be a real bee-yotch. Today's heretic is tomorrow's "gee, she was right."
Moreover, the older I get, the less inclined I am to lose three valuable hours of my time witnessing such spectacles as a dead six-year-old girl's leg getting nommed upon by dogs or a blue man's CGI junk hanging out in your face. No. Thank. You. I could barely sit through the odious Sin City, one of those rare special films where there's so much brutality onscreen you start to feel brutalized just by watching it.
I am however aware there are many a fanboy eager for this kind of entertainment and Watchmen is one of those things among comics fans that you absolutely must adore in order to be taken seriously within those circles. With the film's buzz, that has extended to film geeks as well. And when that happens, God help anyone who dares to offer a differing opinion. There's a blogger who did a review of the film yesterday and it was abundantly clear she was disgusted by the film. Some of what she wrote in her review was unfair and over-the-top in the same way Roger Ebert's review of Fanboys unfairly swiped at SW fandom (which he later clarified/apologized for). But many of the responses she got were appalling. None of these people have yet seen the movie while this blogger had, but that didn't matter. She dared to criticize something they consider untouchable, and that's the presumed awesomeness of Watchmen.
It's not the first time something like this happened. When film critic Richard Roeper wrote some less-than-complimentary things about one of the LOTR movies some years ago, he got death threats. Look at Jimmy Mac's personal and unnecessary flame out of Ebert from a couple of weeks ago (that was for a slam on SW fans mind you, not the movies themselves).
We've all read infuriating things written about SW over the years and I've responded to quite a few of them. But I also know that the credibility of your response depends on what you say and how you say it. Moreover, you have to remind yourself that even if you think the guy is full of crap and a moron and you wouldn't pee on him to save him if he were on fire, he does have a right to his opinion and not everyone in the world is going to love whatever it is the way you do. The blogger who reviewed Watchmen was very specific in why she didn't like the movie. Anybody who has read the original book has to know it's not for everyone.
Fans are very attached to what they love and they're protective of it. But I also know the backlash can be a real bee-yotch. Today's heretic is tomorrow's "gee, she was right."