By now, you’ve probably seen the Watchmen movie and either spoiled it for your friends by telling them all about it, or spoiled it for all your friends by calling it the worst lump of dogshit to ever be crapped out by Hollywood. But whether you loved it or not, there is one detail that will surely be on the lips of every man, woman, and child who watches the film: the repeated, gratuitous, and arguably unnecessary display of Dr. Manhattan’s blue penis.
If you’re anything like me, you were spending a good deal of time during penis-heavy moments looking at his decidedly black eyebrows, wondering where the hell a merciful covering of black pubes could be found. But there were none, and we were left to gaze at the puzzlingly high level of detail in the cock-and-balls CG.
For those of you wondering why that cerulean nutsack was brought to you in such high detail and frequent presentation, remember: this is a movie based on one of the most sacred books in all of comicdom. Zack Snyder, the director of the film, stated that he and his crew viewed the comic almost as a priest would regard holy scripture, a statement no doubt designed to placate the rabid fanboys who would be ready to destroy him if he put a foot wrong. Or a penis. Dr. Manhattan’s member did appear in the comic, but not quite as frequently or with such gusto as it did in the film. So what’s your game, Snyder?
My theory is simple: The filmmakers wanted to create a film that didn’t flinch at the comic’s more difficult, less appealing aspects. They wanted fans to know that they weren’t backing away from details that made the telling of the tale unfomfortable. It is an admirable attitude, but one that ultimately lead them astray. The film obsesses over various details found in the book, but generally fails to convey the sense of impending doom of Cold War nuclear Armageddon, or the urgency of Rorschach’s mission to find the killer and set things right. Instead, sex and violence are thrown in our faces like a badge of the film’s authenticity, forcing a disappointed sigh from a crowd eager to love this film. It’s a shame, really, but not something we’re not used to: for all our enthusiasm, for all the promise, the only thing we’re left with is blue balls.
Comments
Steve Zachmann
March 9th, 2009 - 11:04:41 AM
That's funny, I was just having a conversation on Facebook about the totally unnecessary amount of giant blue dick in that movie. Also, how about the fact that apparently there are no shrinkage problems in Antarctica.
1
Brent Weichsel
March 9th, 2009 - 11:29:23 AM
Couple of problems with your argument. 1.In the comic book you actually see more of Manhattan's penis. 2.All they did was in any shot where you would see his penis you see it. A wide shot so you can see all the characters. Most of the time you can't see it. Should they have done close ups on Manhattan so you could never see it? 3. They weren't trying to show they weren't afraid of the harder edgy parts of the book. Not once when Manhattan is giant sized do you ever see his genitals. They could have showed them quite easily but choose not to. Trust me when dealing with a entirely CGI character you show exactly what you want to. This film had the budget to show it at any point. 4. He has no hair anywhere on his body except for his eyebrows. Why would he have pubic hair if he doesn't have leg, chest, back, head, or arm hair. And to Steve Zachmann. How does he survive on the surface of the sun? or On mars without Oxygen? Please use your head. To both of you please grow up. You saw no problem with Laurie's nudity but might have felt strange when you saw Dan's ass. A human body is a human body. We all have one.
2
Krizia
March 9th, 2009 - 4:02:39 PM
It was an awesome movie and Manhattan's nudity really wasn't a big deal. Anyone who was bothered by it most likely felt insecure because of his own anatomical deficiencies.
3