Joining the ‘endless parade of crazed right-wing culture critics…’
by John Nolte
My wife and I argue about once a year. It comes from nowhere and starts for no reason. It’s a cleansing of sorts where we burst into a litany of long held grievances: You live in the bathroom! You leave dirty dishes in the sink! You have the TV too loud at night! You drive too fast…! Anyone listening to this little rock throwing contest would think we were crazy, and this kind of “crazy” is what came to mind while reading the L.A. Times own Patrick Goldstein’s burst into a fit of rock throwing at Debbie Schlussel.
Here’s the opener:
In the seemingly endless parade of crazed right-wing culture critics always eager to lambaste liberal Hollywood and kill a mosquito with an AK-47 (yes, we’re thinking Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly and Rush “I’m Rooting for Obama to Fail” Limbaugh), no one quite matches the inspired lunacy of Debbie Schlussel.
Goldstein’s vexed over Debbie’s warning to parents that they shouldn’t take their kids to see “Watchmen” — and so he brings out the rocks. First, he spends a few paragraphs lifting very specific quotes of hers from posts unrelated to “Watchmen” and puts them in the worst context imaginable. This, of course, allows him to claim victory without actually addressing the ideas behind her quotes.
Since Goldstein refuses to address her ideas, I will. Debbie is concerned with terrorism and Hollywood’s hyper-sexualization of our children. You see, terrorism and illicit sex cause misery and death and she, along with many of us in the crazed right-wing culture critic parade, can only imagine how much brighter and better the world would be if those on the left agreed with us — if those on the left were as intolerant of terrorism and the sexualization of our children as they are of, say, cigarette smoking. Back to Mr. Goldstein:
In her current post, she got right to the point: “If you take your kids to see ‘Watchmen,’ you’re a moron. If you see it yourself, you’re also probably a moron and a vapid, indecent human being.” She goes on to say that “I haven’t seen a more violent, depraved movie in years. … There were so many disgusting, morbid, grisly scenes and acts of killing, I had to start writing them down. And that’s in addition to the rape scene between superheroes (complete with the violent beating of a female superhero) and an explicit sex scene between two other superheroes. Oh, and don’t forget another superhero’s swinging computer-generated penis frequently in your face.”
Let me just interrupt a second… The title of Goldstein’s piece is “Are you a ‘moron’ if you go see ‘Watchmen’?” But I can’t imagine that someone who opens his piece accusing others of “lunacy” and being “crazed” is offended over the use of the word “moron.” The hypocrisy would be too staggering. Plus, unlike those who hurl ad hominem and take sentences out of context, Debbie actually makes her “Why you’re a moron” case — and I say that as someone who may well qualify as one.
Schlussel is also offended by what she calls the “slutty” behavior of various superheroes, as well as by a “lesbian make-out scene,” but what really sets her off is the idea that the big Hollywood studios behind “Watchmen” are marketing the bloody R-rated film to children — or as she puts it in her classically overheated way: “… they are pimping the movie to all niches, especially your young kids.” It’s a pretty shocking charge, since the movie is clearly unsuitable for young children, which is why it’s rated R in the first place.
So where is Schlussel’s evidence that Warners is selling “Watchmen” to kids, as she charges? Ahem, well, actually, she has no evidence[.]
[Note to self: "Overheated" does not include the use of the words "crazed" and "lunacy" when referring to conservatives]
Well, first off, let’s hope Goldstein didn’t miss the rape, intense violence, computer generated penis and lesbian make-out scene as he scanned crowd shots looking for extras smoking cigarettes, but his charge that there’s no evidence of “Watchmen” being sold to kids is breathtaking.
Criticizing Debbie for not providing evidence of the obvious is nothing more than a rhetorical trick to advance a personal attack. On its face the unthinking will say, “Yeah, where’s the evidence!?!” But give it a quick thought and you’ll realize it’s a diversion, no different than if I demanded Goldstein prove smoking is unhealthy every time he goes on about it.
Water’s wet, the sky is blue, and “Watchmen” is marketing to kids.
Sure there may be the rare straggler every once in a while, but you go to Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic and it’s like opening a hothouse filled with hungry baby chicks. For or against a film, they all sound alike because they all think alike. When it comes to film, Debbie and I don’t always agree, but I like her style, and love that she’s out there. Score one for diversity.
UPDATE: Please read the comments to see the lengths some will go to to rationalize Toys R Us and other retailers putting “Watchmen” action figures on their store shelves and websites. Then take their argument, replace the words “Watchmen Collectibles” with “cigarettes,” and see if they’ll still stand by their “not marketing to kids” argument. Arguing toys in a kids’ toy store aren’t aimed at kids. Where to begin?
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
153 Comments
Why did you marry me?!!!
Got to love liberals. They think conservatives are idiots for claiming that The Golden Compass was a way of brainwashing our kids into atheistic thinking. They think conservatives are crazy for claiming a comicbook movie, that is nothing but adult, isn't being targeted at kids. After all, comicbooks are still read mostly by young people.
When we see further indoctrination of our children to left-wing thinking, we are idiots and crazy for calling it out? Of course these are the same people that paint all homeschoolers as "nuts".
Did any of you guys on the Watchmen beat cover that Matthew "Ozymandias" Goode quote yet?
http://agentbedhead.com/index.php/archive/ozymand...
Pure class. Though not terribly safe for the profanity-shy.
Got to love liberals. They think conservatives are idiots for claiming that The Golden Compass was a way of brainwashing our kids into atheistic thinking. They think conservatives are crazy for claiming a comic book movie, that is nothing but adult, isn't being targeted at kids. Nevermind that comic books are still read mostly by young people.
When we see further indoctrination of our children to left-wing thinking, we are idiots and crazy for calling it out? Of course these are the same people that paint all homeschoolers as "nuts".
My problem with what Debbie said isn't that the movie is being marketed to children. It clearly is being marketed to teenagers so close enough. It's that she blasts the story of the movie even though it follows the spirit of the comic. She went in to see a movie based on a classic story and then blasted the story. She could have written the same column about the comic in '87 that she wrote about the movie now. Her point about parents and children wasn't wrong…it was just twenty years too late and in a different medium.
I can say that as a first-rate geek, the action figures & lunch boxes that you linked too aren't marketed to kids. They're marketed to those, "who have never felt the touch of a woman" (quoting you from memory). Most action figures & the like are marketed to the collector's market, rather than kids who will actually play with them. Think Andy's living room in "The Forty-Year Old Virgin."
Since Goldstein refuses to address her ideas,
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
John I can safely say if Goldstein had actually confronted Debbie's statements about Watchmen he may very well have had to take a long hard look at himself.
Firstly Leftists are incapable of debate, hence the ad hom attack on Debbie, as well as the demonization of the rest of the "conservative" stars like Rush, Anne, Sean, etc. Instead of debating the issue, they resort to the politics of personal destruction. Now if I remember right that is the last place in a debate on an issue you want to go because it proves you can't win the argument. My tactic is to meet them headon with facts. They either resort to either more of the same baseless personal attacks or they shut up. They know they can't win a debate..this is why Goldstein did what he did.
And count me in as a moron who may want to see Watchmen.
Yes, they make Watchmen action figures. They've also made action figures from Reservoir Dogs, 300, Saw, Halloween, Friday the 13th, American Psycho, Scarface, Sin City, and there's even a Hannibal Lecter action figure out there. Having said that, yes, you are a moron if you take your kid to see Watchmen.
It's just so weird to me that lefties are so certain of their rectitude yet they are pathologically incapable of argumentation without either deliberately taking conservatives out of context, employing the same kind of epithets for which they express revulsion at or both.
Several people here have recommended “Watchmen.” Schlussel calls them all vapid, indecent morons. You’re okay with this?
Don’t get me wrong, this doesn’t sound like my kind of movie at all, and I definitely disapprove of marketing it to kids. I’m going myself, but only because a friend asked me to go and I want to spend time with her. I’m not expecting to enjoy it greatly, frankly.
But I have real problems, as I’ve said before, with the way the lady expresses herself. And it seriously bothers me that a certain faction of conservatism that can’t say anything without being shrill and spiteful is applauded as being strong and brave. It is possible for a conservative woman to display the latter qualities while still being classy. (See Palin, Sarah – whom Schlussel hates with a passion, and for the craziest of reasons. Maybe she simply can't stand the idea that a conservative woman can get her point across courteously.)
While you post anonymously on the interwebs. Coward.
My biggest complaint with Schlussel's article — and I have a couple complaints — is criticizing Watchmen's alternate timeline as if it were a mistake, as if no one in the production realized that Nixon wasn't president in the 1980's.
Not grasping such a simple and uncontroversial aspect of the story's premise severely undermines her credibility.
Great piece, thanks You point to what essentially is a long-running liberal war against moral clarity.
Sorry but no she did not simply claim that you shouldn't bring your kids to this movie (and I doubt conservatives would be the ones who would do that, usually it's the leftists that are that stupid).
"If you see it yourself, you're also probably a moron and a vapid, indecent human being."
"There were so many disgusting, violent, morbid, grisly scenes and acts of killing, I had to start writing them down, lest I forget."
"Yup, this is the garbage that Rupert Murdoch's Fox and Warner Brothers and Paramount are marketing toward your kids." (no, it's not, she is just straight up wrong)
She goes into remarkable detail about all the things that offended her. Then she gets served up in her own comments section. As a moderate conservative I would like to be able to point out the crazies on my side. Debbie is simply wrong about Watchmen, I am not a vapid indecent human being for seeing it, I'm not going to go nuts about the politics in the movie (the politics are indeed very neutral despite some of the odd views of history which was intentional to the story) and I have not seen any hint that this was ever marketed to children.
I would also warn against trying to make Rorschach out to be a largely conservative type of figure in the story, but that's a comment for another time.
When we saw it there were quite a few young children there. When they were fighting at the beginning of the rape scene, a little boy about 5 or 6 years old said "Hey! He can't hit a girl!"
Walks over to wall, rares back, and bangs own head on wall. Repeatedly.
I thought Miss Schussel had mostly good points with a little bit of well-meaning, but just not getting it. After reading your post, John, I'm wondering if I'm a weak-kneed idiot, and Miss Schussel is not a hundred percent correct.
As far as her criticism being "20 years too late," I'd bet that a large number of those who plan to see the movie have never read or heard of the comic book. They're enticed by what they have seen advertised, they like that kind of movie, so they go. I think those are the people she's warning to keep their children away.
Some time ago, the crowd in my office was into collecting McDonald's Happy Meal toys. They weren't meant for us, we just got silly for a while. That's how I feel about adults collecting action figures and lunch boxes from today's movies, They are meant to attract youngsters, but some adults collect them just for fun [and, yes, some adults collect them because they think it's an investment]
Another thing to note is how her piece and the reaction underscores the brittle nature of public colloquy in our time, and the default "liberal" resentment of debate at all. For example, I found Schlussel's piece refreshing, passionate, original. If I hadn't fundamentally agreed with her, I would have been delighted to challenge her. It would have been fun. Instead, what we see are angry, distortive, resentful responses — not only from commenters but essayists like Goldstein. The whole dynamic of debate in our country is both shriveling and petrifying simultaneously, if that is possible.
I had honestly hoped to not see support for probably one of the worst written reactionary conservative articles I have ever read. Schussel not only showed that she lacked a basic understanding of the film, she also attacked anyone who could have liked it. She in subsequent posts said that ’she didn’t have to read the comic’ to judge whether it was good or not. Her arguments are awful, her tone even worse.
I completely agree that this film is in no way one that children should see. It sets out to be shocking, as shocking as it’s far less graphic predecessor novel was in 1986. It takes a bit more now.
Watchmen however isn’t marketed to kids just as other ‘R’ rated comic properties weren’t. As has been said before, the price of the action figures sets them clearly at the collector’s market. Same with the lunchboxes. It has quite a bit to do with the so-called ‘geek’ culture, which has been growing, though many know very little about it.
However it is completely clear that Schlussel exaggerates for effect, and gets many points wrong. For example the rape and its effects are completely misrepresented. It never occured, but maybe she was too busy writing in her notepad to understand something that was clearly shown in the film.
Finally, you accuse the LA times article of taking her out of context, and I would disagree completely, her words are exceptionally clear, and the impression oyu get reading the quotes in the LA times piece, is EXACTLY what was intended by Schlussel. She isn’t being misquoted, or quoted deceptively, as often happens to Rush and others, her article is overblown and asinine. It is embarrassing, and it should be ripped apart.
Arguments can be made in regards to the merits of the film, whether or not its content was excessive or not, or whether it’s even a great piece of cinema, or pure trash. Good arguments can be made on all sides.
Schlussel’s piece was clearly not a good argument. It was far more reactionary and insulting than the LA times post, which seems restrained in comparison. In fact it is, at least he didn’t call everyone who liked the film “probably a moron, and a vapid, indecent human being.” I mean COME ON!! That type of argument is usually reserved for liberal whackjobs, but I guess that they no longer have the market cornered on that.
I guess Debbie might as well add Christianity Today to her list of morons. They gave Watchmen a 3 1/2 stars! —
http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/reviews/2...
This is most certainly a movie I will NOT watch.
I know the few "fanboys" or whatever who know the story get all upset when someone criticizes the plot, but the overwhelming majority of people have never heard of the Watchmen until the movie came out. Yes, I mean the overwhelming majority. The plot should make some sense to those who watch a movie without reading the source material. And really, if the story of the source material is that wacko, why make a movie out of it? Anyway, the point of John's post isn't really the content of the movie or the content of her article, but the hypocrisy of Patrick Goldstein.
The review was awful, along with her arguments. Outside of parents taking their kids to an R movie, which most of us agree is dumb, but her comprehension of what the Watchmen story can be referenced by Bob Dylan:
"Don't criticize what you don't understand"
The toys are for collectors not children – they aren't showing up in Happy Meal toys, there isn't a cartoon based on this book on Saturday morning. Watchmen contents are for mature readers.
I thought her review was a parody piece from the Onion or Ed Anger when I first read it last night. If you don't want your kids to go, then don't take them. I'm not taking mine, but I'm seeing it with a group of friends tonight and none of them are morons or indecent for wanting to see "fictional" film based on a classic book.
Jane Hamsher's feminist falsies? Class.
Any reviewer who claims someone is an indecent moron if they see a film is not very credible in my eyes. Watchmen is an adult comic. That's one of the things that made it groundbreaking in its time, that it took superheroes to an adult level. The idea of a superhero raping someone was new, even though it's actually an ancient idea. The greek gods did a lot of that.
She's right that it's not a movie for kids. That's why it has an R rating. When I was a teenager I wanted to see all the Rs. You're not going to stop that impulse in teens. But frankly, the film doesn't defend rape and so on. It's not like one of those Hostel or Saw movies that gets off on violence. It has a point.
She would make a much better argument without insulting people like she did. But he has a right to say what she thinks. However, she invites that kind of criticism when she goes over the top like that.
Yep….classic case of a drive-by insult.
Quick shot ("she's still an idiot"), then a totally unrelated, unsupportable slap ("photoshopped picture"), and with a squeal of smoking tires, lol vanishes into the intraweb.
Randi Rhoads's sidewalk kissing incident? Chris Brown!!!! I know this tu quoque thing is terrible, especially during Lent, but you just had to bring the ad feminem.
I don't know about you, maybe you were the slow and nerdy type, but teenagers don't play with action figures, as a rule. I know, I have raised 2 of them. And hosted hundreds of friends over the years. I don't always agree with everything Debbie says, sometimes not at all, recently she wrote something that out and out P'od me. But yeah, I saw the Watchmen toys in Toys R Us. You know, the place KIDS like? Then they want to go see the movie, and then the lunchbox, and when you say no, you're the a$$hole. Not Hollywood.
I don't know about you, maybe you were the slow and nerdy type, but teenagers don't play with action figures, as a rule. I know, I have raised 2 of them. And hosted hundreds of friends over the years. I don't always agree with everything Debbie says, sometimes not at all, recently she wrote something that out and out P'od me. But yeah, I saw the Watchmen toys in Toys R Us. You know, the place KIDS like? Then they want to go see the movie, and then the lunchbox, and when you say no, you're the a$$hole. Not Hollywood.
I posted mine before I read this. Wrong. While some are used as collector's items, they find a great target with the little boy set. I have bought hundreds of action figures, trust me, I know. They start loving them at about age three to about 11. Wanna buy a box-full? My son is 19.
Debbie forgets that:1. It's Fiction 2. It's an R rated film 3.Comic books aren't just for kids anymore 4.It's not Hollywood's responsibility to raise your own children(parents are responsible for teaching their kids right and wrong.If she believes in a nanny state, why is she a conservative?)
As a conservative(not moderate) comic book reader/collector (it's called a hobby Debbie), I hardly/never see little kids at the comic shop. It's mostly college kids or adults. If you didn't like the movie, that's your right. But don't insult the people who will like it. The scenes you describe aren't there for shock, they serve a purpose to the story(the deconstruction of the superhero).
Did you like the movie, The Silence of the Lambs?I don't remember people who enjoyed the movie becoming cannibalistic killers from watching it. For someone who was offended by the slutty behavior and lesbian scene in The Watchmen, do you still go on The Howard Stern show?Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Whatever angry, resentful responses there may be are certainly not limited to to Schlussel's critics. Take a look at her own interjections within the comments. She would need to attend charm school in order to dial back the vitriol enough to merely be a troll.
I'm so sick of the "what's wrong with letting kids see this stuff" argument – almost ALWAYS coming from people who AREN'T parents. I wrote something up on my site a while back warning parents that this is not "just another superhero movie."
http://screenrant.com/watchmen-awesome-leave-kids...
Vic
Oh, BTW, I couldn't give a rat's rear less about the review(s), or the movie. I wouldn't go see it, unless I was held at gunpoint. I hate this kind of crap, but to each his own.
Ok, as a woman who owns an un-opened Jayne action figure from Serenity … some toys do get sold to adults for collector purposes, but generally those toys are not the type you find at places like Toy R US. You find those in the dingy little comic shops or on-line and they are quite a bit more expensive.
I have to question how closely you read her essay because she addresses that issue specifically. She made it clear that the issue is irrelevant given the concept of garbage-in-garbage-out (my words, not hers). Arguing for the movie, based on the close adherence to the source material, doesn't justify the content in either one.
Personally, I haven't read the book and I have no real interest in seeing the movie, so I don't have a dog in this fight, but I'll agree – in general – with the her point.
"Nevermind that comic books are still read mostly by young people."
The thing is, they AREN'T, though. Young people (i.e. KIDS of the age that ought not be seeing this R-rated film) aren't reading ANYTHING excepting big phenoms like Potter or (for the tweens) Twilight. Period. They certainly aren't reading comics – anyone in that business will tell you if they had to get by ONLY on their child readers, they'd be dead. Comics (superhero books in particular) are an 18-and-up demo right now, and even THAT'S skewing optimistically young. Median age is closer to 25 at this point, and aging. Sad but true.
Oh, they make money off the CHARACTERS from kids, but not from the comics. If young kids know Spider-Man or Batman, they know them from cartoons and movies.
"Nevermind that comic books are still read mostly by young people."
The thing is, they AREN'T, though. Young people (i.e. KIDS of the age that ought not be seeing this R-rated film) aren't reading ANYTHING excepting big phenoms like Potter or (for the tweens) Twilight. Period. They certainly aren't reading comics – anyone in that business will tell you if they had to get by ONLY on their child readers, they'd be dead. Comics (superhero books in particular) are an 18-and-up demo right now, and even THAT'S skewing optimistically young. Median age is closer to 25 at this point, and aging. Sad but true.
Oh, they make money off the CHARACTERS from kids, but not from the comics. If young kids know Spider-Man or Batman, they know them from cartoons and movies.
What a shock — he isn't married to the woman who's bearing his child.
How is it clear that the film is being marketed to teenagers rather than adults? Compare the tone and imagery of the commercials to the same for any number of films or TV shows aimed at teens, most of which tend to look like little more than celebrations of youth culture (see Gossip Girl, 90210, Privileged, Race to Witch Mountain). In contrast, WATCHMEN's commercial tone is dark and somber throughout, even when depicting things that might otherwise seem exciting.
In bullet form:
Schussel is not an idiot, but that does not prevent her from having an idiotic outlook (most of the time) or behaving in a manner befitting an idiot (this time.)
If "Watchmen" figures are turning up at Toys R Us, it is an irresponsible and foolish decision by Warner Bros. and Toys R Us. The movie isn't for kids, it's NOT being sold to kids (the trailers clearly show a grim, adult film.) But action figures don't by their existance mean "aimed at kids" – you can tell the Watchmen toys are for the "adult" (and I use those quotations as someone WITH a plastic Rorschach on my dresser shelf) collector because the boxes are uniform and flat-bottomed, i.e. intended for display. (Same thing with the lunchbox – do kids even USE Lunchboxes anymore in the age of taxpayer-funded school meals? Those things are for ironic-nostalgiasts to keep their cigarettes and iPods in.)
(cont)
It's an adult movie, anyone even glancing at the murder and cop-fighting and sex even in the TRAILERS can see that. The film oughtn't be held responsible for morons who take their kids anyway. And yes, OF COURSE kids want to see it. Kids want to see R-rated movies. They want to see Jason and Die Hard and all the rest. Such has it been, such will it always be. And like ALL R-rated genre films kids want to see, there'll be kids who don't ever get to see it – they'll grow up to be ordinary and/or boring. There'll be kids who get taken by idiot parents – they're probably already gonna grow up to be idiots like mom and dad. And then, of course, there's the kids who're clever enough to sneak in – they grow up to be awesome
John, this is more a technical question, but is it too late for me to change my site handle to Computer-Generated Penis? Thanks.
Moving in the same vein as Watchmen® action figures, this takes the marketing to kids angle to an, umm, entirely new level:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDDHHrt6l4w
Liberals like to police people's lives as well – shoving environmentalism down people throats, imposing PC-ness on everyone, demonizing gun owners.
I've seen that criticism from a number of quarters, but one need not have read Watchmen to follow the movie. The main plot is pretty simple. And elements of the source material are arguably "wacko," but much of it will seem much less so to audiences today than in the 80s, having seen elements of Watchmen turn up in other superhero movies, ranging from The Dark Knight to The Incredibles.
That being said, it is not a typical comic book movie. People are obviously entitled to criticize the moralities (or amoralities) of the characters, though I think Schlussel was so put off by the more graphic scenes that she missed the multiple moralities that are there for the viewer to consider. James Hudnall's piece today goes into this in more detail.
As a child, I was able to watch whatever movies I wanted and listen to whatever music I wanted. I also had parents that were aware of what I was exposed to and discussed the subject matter. I'm a parent now and I echo the ""what's wrong with letting kids see this stuff" sentiment, but would also add my own "as long as you discuss this stuff with your kids."
I'm just starting to let my almost 13 daughter start to watch some R rated movies, but there is discussion before and after.
But I can tell you that she doesn't need to see (nor does she want to) extremely graphic scenes of violence (bones breaking in a street fight and being shown snapping and protruding outward, a man's hands being graphically sawed off with a circular saw, multiple hatchet chops into a man's skull, graphic beatings) nor a very explicit scene of two people having sex – all of which is in "Watchmen."
Vic
So it's okay when Debbie Schlussel criticizes "Watchmen" for its depravity and violence, but it's not okay when Anthony Lane does it, because he's one of those limp-wristed liberals?
This "Watchmen" is , I take it, another comic book movie? Thank God! We can never have enough of those. I read yesterday that there is even an independent film of 9 short vignettes based on the Fundamentalist religious tracts of Jack T. Chick. ( http://www.316now.com/) Does anyone in Hollywood read, you know, books anymore?
Movie Bob has a point. I've been reading comics for over 45 years (hmmm, maybe I shouldn't have admitted to that) and they have certainly changed A LOT in that time. You can still get some comics pitched at young kids, but the bulk are clearly aimed at an older audience. Mabye it's the market I live in (a college town) but I rarely see a "kid" in my local comic shop. When I do they are either looking through the stuffed animal/toy tie-ins or are with a parent who is going through the older comics (either looking for something to fill out the parent's collection or something kid-friendly).
JSO, did you follow the links in John's article? I think when you see the tab says 'Toys 'r us / Babies 'r us' you have to concede who the market is for those products, right? By the way I looked to see if they weren't some old vestiges of some graphic-novel collection (not that this in any way would dilute the point), but they say 'Watchmen The Movie".
http://www.316now.com/
I don't identify as a Conservative or Liberal Tennwriter, but among the reasons that I am addicted to this site (as I was Dirty Harry's Place and Libertas before that) is the humility and open-mindedness of most of the people who frequent it. Your question proves your lack of idiocy (to me anyway).
BTW, I've got the same red spot on my forehead after reading John's post.
"not marketed to kids because of its R rating"?
Anyone heard of "Dark Knight" or "Joe Camel"? (no, I'm not saying Dark Knight was bad or gives you lung cancer).
You're right. She should.
Well spotted!
Well, Jso, what kind of lunch pail do you take to your office?
RACIST
Good point about Schlussel being affected by the graphic scenes Karl.
The newspapers here in Detroit have run about 73 gazillion stories about the homeless over the years. I would expect that most would have elicited some emotion in the readers. A couple of months ago they wrote another one. This time they accompanied the article with a picture of a dead homeless man's legs protruding from the ice at the bottom of an elevator shaft in an abandoned building (where people were apparently playing pick-up hockey about 25 feet away). This one caused all kinds of outrage and letters to be fired off.
Why? Was it the worst story ever to be reported? Probably not.
Graphic presentation of images has a different affect on people than text. Add to that the hyper-reality of a motion picture and the effect is exponential.
I am a consumer of entertainment. I don't mean to be a hypocrite (although I won't be seeing Watchmen or it's ilk). Sometimes, enough is enough. Sometimes the suggestion could make the point as powerfully as the demonstration while still showing respect for decency.
As a little caveat (to myself anyway), I wish my 15 year-old self who devoured Watchmen, the Dark Knight Returns, the Killing Joke, Daredevil, etc. could read what I wrote. He would scoff, fidget (make sure his mohawk was standing up straight) dismiss, and quietly agree. He'd also probably try to sneak in to see the movie. I can only hope my mom would have been a Schlussel reader.
This marketing is nothing new. I remember Terminator and Jurassic Park action figures back in the day. I was mad at my parents because they were really cool looking toys, but I had absolutely no frame of reference for who the characters were. Those movies were rated R, and my folks wouldn't let me see them. Sure, neither of those movies had rape or pedopihiles, but it's hard to top an unstoppable killer robot and an unstoppable killing lizard for violence.
I agree. I'm not seeing the movie in theaters, as that's prohibitively expensive. I'll catch it on dvd though. Debbie makes valid points about the violence and sex, but conservatives need to stay above ad hominem attacks. She could have made her case without being rude. That being said, that was the first article of hers that I read, and also the last.
Makes Ann Coulter look like Miss Manners. I was not impressed by Schlussel.
I saw one of the Robocops at a friend's house when I was seven. My parent's never let me watch R rated movies, so I knew it was wrong. That night, I couldn't sleep because of nightmares. I had nightmares every day for a week before I told my folks what I did. Thereafter, I stayed away from the movies they didn't want me to see. They knew what they were talking about. I don't know when the transition started, but eventually, I started watching more violent stuff with my dad, but I dont' remember discussion. just an implied "You know you can't do this in real life."
I agree. She could have said the same thing without flaming. Being intentionally insulting is not a good way to keep your audience, especially when you're insulting said audience.
PLEASE, can we have a moratorium on the 'parent your kids' comments? PLEASE, PLEASE PLEASE?????
Are you a smoker Mdiddy? If you're not, I hope you always get seated in the 'control your lungs' section right next to some guy chain smoking Camels. If you are, I hope that your job requires cross-country flights three times a week and your boss tells you to 'parent your addictions'.
People who think that we own little robots that we are just too lazy to program and that we let get in the way of their libertine desires are my fave!
My favorite argument so far is the water carrier one arguing cheap MOVIE action figures sold at Toys R Us (of all places) are meant for the 'never felt the touch of a woman' collectible crowd.
Classic. Just classic.
Or disturbed libertines. You forget, I've been reading your comments for a long time MovieBob
Never try to insert logic or reason between a person and their desires John (at least on the interwebz). You will witness acrobatics that no superhero can match.
I'm pretty surprised that Christianity Today didn't pan it given the content. But then again, we've been made to feel we have to apologize for having standards. I don't really mind Schlussel's comments, even the "moron" part. Given my speculative fiction tastes, I've long ago dealt with the fact I will always be looked down on by Academy Award types and film reviewers merely because I go for this sort of film. However, the Watchmen sounds genuinely awful. Surely there's a better way to bring up a discussion of the themes, as important as they are, than all of this graphic, nasty stuff. And it does affect adults negatively. Maybe they don't go out and do that stuff, but they tolerate a lot more crap than they would. Many of the comment here are so surprising. I thought this was a conservative website, after all, but I wouldn't have guessed.
I read Debbie's movie reviews, and her web site for that matter, for her opinion. Isn't that what a movie critic is supposed to do? Give an opinion that is personal and not studio talking points? I don't want talking points. If the review isn't personal, it might not be honest. Gut reaction vs industry insider. Go Debbie.
Movie Bob is if anything, optimistic. Marvel's Annual Reports (online at the SEC, don't take my word for it) say the median age of the comic book readers is 40. And that was a few years ago. Comics today take their readers from the comics boom of 1989-1991, when readers in their mid to late twenties started buying and reading, comics written for that age range. As comics have declined in readership (Superman went from 2 million copies to 200,000 copies to now about 70,000 copies, monthly) they have focused ever more on a few, wealthy (comics cost around $5-$6 a copy), middle class and middle aged, overwhelmingly male readers.
Ironically, most characters were conceived in many cases seventy years ago by young writers who aimed at a young readership. Like say, Superman. At any rate, Schussel is correct, this movie is not for kids and is aimed directly at them in marketing.
As for the substance of Watchmen, it's not very original or entertaining. When I read it (long after it premiered) I found it well … boring. Since the problem of our age is not the Cold War escalating to nuclear destruction of the world, but technology allowing even failing peoples/states/groups to kill lots of previously remote Westerners, for their own ends.
Alan Moore got it wrong, spectacularly wrong, in every respect. Moreover, much of the comic depends on knowing which obscure Charlton Comics characters are being parodied/deconstructed. Ozymandias for example is "Peter Cannon, Thunderbolt," not an original creation. The original character, created by a NYC police officer, was a gentle Martial Artist/Mystic who wanted nothing more than to meditate, not save the world or kick ass, and was only reluctantly forced into action against dinosaurs, a bitter rival, and an ancient sorceress.
Among other things, Moore's work is profoundly disrespectful to the creator of Peter Cannon. Who was still alive when the comic was written. It's also "deconstructive" in that you have to know the background of the gentle, withdrawn hero who is made into a nasty villain, to "get" the whole comic and movie.
What this says is that Moore cannot create characters on his own, only distort original ones done by others. Which is why the source material itself does not work, let alone the plot points hinging on a Cold War era long gone and totally irrelevant.
In the case of Joe Camel, you have cigarettes (an adult product) being markted to kids via means (an anthropomorphized camel) that appeals to kids.
In the case of WATCHMEN, you have an adult movie (an adult product) being marketed to adults via means (dark and gloomy commercials, mainly) that have been massaged so as to not appeal to kids.
Also, here's hoping that Zack stays away from the upcoming 'Peanuts – the Movie'. I DO NOT WANT to see the Snoopy dancing scenes. EEECHHH! Artistic integrity and fidelity can be taken too far!
Ad hominem attacks, I find, are always the mark of a weak argument.
There is this (fake) cartoon.
Whoops, almost forgot the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDDHHrt6l4w
Whatever you think of Schlussel's review, this touches on what happens to those who dare trample on fanboy shibboleths, in this case the presumed awesomeness of "Watchmen." In the geek warrens of conventions, websites, blogs, and message boards, the denizens brook no dissent. Social conservatives don't get treated very well either.
Schlussel can be a bit of a volcano at times but I think her review was written out of pure shock at what's passing for mainstream entertainment. I have to wonder myself what we're gaining from watching dogs nom on a dead child's leg or a blue man's CGI junk dangling around for all to see. People will unfortunately haul their kids to see this sort of thing and let them watch it whenever it comes out on DVD. Worse yet, I have to wonder what's deep down in the soul of the geeks who crave this kind of material. This is what we want? Why?
John, you're just ignorant of the reality that there really is a subculture of never-known-the-touch-of-a-woman adults who buy this stuff (the action figures). It's true. That's the market for this; not children.
Now, as for Toys R Us, I could go there today and buy videogames that are adults only. Does the fact that Toys R Us carries these videogames mean that the games are marketed to kids? Of course not.
John, you just don't know that there really is a subculture of never-known-the-touch-of-a-woman adults who buy this stuff (the action figures). It's true. That's the market for this; not children.
Now, as for Toys R Us, I could go there today and buy videogames that are adults only. Does the fact that Toys R Us carries these videogames mean that the games are marketed to kids? Of course not.
I've seen what comes of letting kids who are too young see too much too soon. The results are not pretty and in this particular case, they led to the administrator of our facility politely but firmly telling the parent in question that we could not make much headway in helping the child in question without that child receiving some counciling help. In my years working in that place, she had only done that one other time. In other words, given that we work with kids who have ADHD, Tourette's, Aspberger's, higher functioing autistic children, and a host of other behavioral and psychological issues on top of the learning disabilities that are our main stock in trade, it takes a quite for us to finally admit that we cannot work with a child.
Let me see … If you see it yourself, you’re also probably a moron and a vapid, indecent human being.” She goes on to say that “I haven’t seen a more violent, depraved movie in years. … " I guess since she states that "I haven't seen" it means that she's seen the movie and is therefore (as most liberals are these days) a vapid, indecent human being…and a moron!!
"being markted to kids via means (an anthropomorphized camel) that appeals to kids"
…and just what do you think these action figures (not talking about the "Rosie the Riveter" ones, here) are, Kensington? And just when is that "Eyes Wide Shut" product line coming out?
"(dark and gloomy commercials, mainly)"
I don't think anyone is suggesting a pre-school/Fisher Price tie-in here. And what do you think the "House of the Dead" and "Resident Evil" video games were- bright, shiny Prozac?
"been massaged so as to not appeal to kids."
Wow- I bet you said that with a straight face, too. Kind of gives a whole new meaning to the word "massaged", dontcha think? frickin' "so as to not appeal to kids" Thanks a lot for the chuckle- I enjoyed that one.
Kensington, I know that subculture exists, that's a different debate and a lazy way to obscure my argument as if to say I'm saying no such thing exists. I expect better.
But to argue these cheap toys at TOYS R US are aimed collectors is beyond absurd. they're on the website as TOYS not collectibles.
Good grief. Who declared a logic-free zone?
I think you're right, it's been a long time since I've seen any kids at a comic book store who hadn't obviously been dragged in by a comic-mad dad, and didn't look bored half to death. Kid's comics have virtually disappeared from the mainstream magazine racks too.
I think comics are becoming the literary equivalent of Jazz. The mainstream market will become more and more limited to a handful of classic stories, most of them written decades ago. New stuff will be bought by a relatively small core group of obsessives. Like Jazz, comics will have a fairly large influence on popular culture, but will no longer truly be part of popular culture themselves.
Wow! $49.00 action figures at a completely different store — figures of guys in suits, no less — compared to cheap superheroes in superhero costumes in the biggest KIDS toy store in America.
You've surpassed apples and oranges and moved right into apples and carbuerators.
take a bow.
Yeah, John: $49 for a set, but they’re also sold separately at prices similar to the WATCHMEN doll prices, just as there are more expensive sets available for the WATCHMEN dolls.
Instead of patting yourself on the back, which you seem to want to do far, far too easily, try and consider the point with something approaching, even mildly, some good faith. The WATCHMEN figures and the Reservoir Dog dolls (as well as the Godfather action figure) are the same darn things. It’s not apples and oranges – they’re all apples.
And yes, the Reservoir Dog dolls aren’t currently available at Toys R Us, but they used to be, and a year from now, the only place you’ll be able to find the WATCHMEN dolls will be the same places that are selling the Reservoir Dogs stuff now.
Children are still not the market for this.
No, I'm stuck on apples while you talk carbeurators.
Cheap little superhero dolls at the largest toy story on the world, compared to… Gee, by your definition (this is me getting un-stuck on DOLZ …lol) EVERYTHING at Toys-r-Us can be labeled as not-for-kids. Eventually, it's all collectibles! Why it's not even a toy store for kids, that's just a ruse — it's really a store for adults to gander future collectibles!
I tell you what, you run on back here with a photo of all those toys, er, uhm oops, collectibles (As you call them and the store that sells them does not) on the high, adults-only shelf — and I'll stop picturing you carrying two 10 gallon pails of water marked HOLLYWOOD.
Deal?
f "Watchmen" figures are turning up at Toys R Us, it is an irresponsible and foolish decision by Warner Bros. and Toys R Us.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that's exactly what Debbie was getting at. Yeah, maybe the actual filmmakers and creative minds behind the film aren't pitching it to kids, but the studio, in a way, is. If you sell merchandise based on a movie in a children's toy store, you're putting the idea of the movie in the child's mind. You can't just sell a product directly and exclusively related to a film/graphic novel and then turn around and say the target demographic of the merchandise (and yes, if the product is in a Toys 'R' Us, children are the target demographic) shouldn't see the actual film or read the graphic novel.
Another important thing to consider is the unique nature of the film. At least when Batman toys were being sold in conjunction with the release of The Dark Knight, there was some other context to Batman as a character outside of the gritty version depicted in the film. Kids could take these figures and have innocuous, Adam West-esque adventures because Batman is an established character that, in some incarnations, is more kid-friendly. Of course, that doesn't mean the toys didn't encourage the children to see the film. But there is ostensibly an appeal and context to the toys outside of that of the film. Watchmen is different. There is no "kid-friendly" version of these characters. When a child gets a Comedian toy, they're getting a toy based on a violent rapist. Pure and simple. So there's no reason that these figures should be in a Toys 'R' Us. Perhaps Warner Brothers isn't actively trying to get children to see this film, but by selling these toys to children, they are playing up the "superhero" aspect of a film that is not traditional superhero fare, and that makes the film more accessible and appealing to these kids. A truly responsible marketing campaign wouldn't sell their merchandise in toy stores and would instead market the film for what it is.
All that being said, I do agree with those here who have said that Debbie doesn't exactly have the most effective writing style. I certainly don't like being labeled a "moron" for having an interest in seeing this film, and I think she would do well to express her point in a more eloquent and less vitriolic manner.
If you actually click on any of the toys listed in the Toys R Us link, you will see that the recommended age for all of them is 18 and over. Except the first one, where the manufacturers recommended age is 14 and up (although Toys R Us still recommends 18 and up).
Which is not proof that the movie is not being marketed to kids, but the claim would be a bit more believable with other evidence.
John, I need those pails of water to wash away all that straw you’ve thrown all over the place.
My personal favorite!
I made something like this very point in my post on Schlussel and other reviewer's takes on Watchmen here: http://blog.infinitemonkeysblog.com/?q=node/6261
I didn't like Schlussel's review. I didn't like her tone. I think she's right that parents who take their young children to see the movie are fools, but I doubt very much that those parents are reading her. Lane made a similar point very effectively, but I'd point out that he doesn't understand the comics medium any better than Schlussel does.
By the way, I thought Philip Kennicott's review in the Washington Post today was pretty solid. So much so, in fact, that I regret having read it before I saw the movie.
Good grief — instead of quibbling for a hunderd words, Google what collectibles cost.
Frankly, I want to know this: Is Watchmen worth going to see in theaters? Is it well made, is it any good, is it worth paying $5 to go see? If anybody can answer my questions, please respond.
We all would say someone was an indecent moron if they watched a snuff film. So the question is not whether we would make that judgment, but when to make it.
I get that. I'm telling you, most parents aren't buying $17 action figures for their kids, and it doesn't matter if they are being sold in Toys R Us. And I'm inclined to agree with you 99.99 percent of the time, John. Save your exasperation for the other jackasses.
Jurassic Park was PG-13.
Also, regarding this comment "collectibles (As you call them and the store that sells them does not)," many of them are in fact called "Collectibles" at the Toys R Us site. The last four (the expensive ones) are categorized under "Collectibles"–click on any of the $59.99+ ones and you will see how it is categorized. Also, the first Rorschach doll–the only one the manufacture suggests for 14 and up–is called 'Rorschach 7" Collector Action Figure.'
This is the only aspect of Debbie Schlussel's article that was even reasonable and the facts supporting it are falling apart. The rest of the article is nonsense–you don't have to be a "wacko lefty" to see that, just an intelligent film-goer. It is a great embarrassment to you that you not only highlighted it but came to its defense. This sort of article will not endear you to any serious film-goer, left or right. But if all you want is a shout-out from Rush Limbaugh, then well done.
http://www.sadlyno.com/wordpress/uploads/2008/06/...
RECOMMENDED for 14 or 18 and up? They put action figures in a TOYS R US and they're not marketing to kids. It's just unbelievable.
Lunch boxes, those weeble looking things, t-shirts, hoodies…
Commercials during American Idol…
You know what, I'm sold. My lying eyes again.
I'd be happy with a "not even with your moronic parents can you see this in the movie theater under a certain age" provision for R movies. (With a babe-in-arms exception the other direction so nursing mothers can go see a flick.)
In fact, the big mega-plex here does just that for anything that isn't a day-time show… though they claim it's a consideration for the other adult movie-goers who don't want to deal with children and their noise. It's not 17 though, but don't remember if it's age 10 or 13 or what. I have no way to know how much that "other moviegoers" is an excuse. In any case, there is no reason that theaters have to be compelled to allow anyone in to a movie and no reason that they must go along with the "except with a parent" thing and admit 8 or 10 year olds to an R movie.
There's always DVD's at home. (And truthfully… the smaller screen and what-all does make a difference.)
To the extent that some marketing puke is promoting *any* R rated movie to children, they should be spanked. Fandom marketing is to adults, however, despite the confusion caused by action-figures and retro metal lunchboxes. The trailers were dark and violent. The little happy face has a splash of *blood* on it, for pity's sake.
I really don't know that this is controversial, and if Schlussel was making this argument I doubt she'd have gotten much blow-back. And really… even adults like to know what they are getting into when they go to movies, so a nice big warning that this was unexpectedly graphic might well be appreciated by many who are considering going.
But it wasn't… "Hey, this is closer to Kill Bill than Superman, be aware," or even, "For the love of all that's holy, do NOT bring children to this movie!"
What her "review" was, was a personal transference of guilt for all the bad stuff portrayed (even if portrayed *as* bad stuff) in the movie to anyone who might want to watch it. As if any one who can tolerate watching a slut on a movie screen becomes a slut, anyone who tolerates a racial slur uttered in a movie becomes guilty of uttering the slur, that sort of associative guilt. And then she had a melt-down when people got upset at her and tried to explain that there were other things going on in the story.
And all because she went into a "super hero" movie expecting that it was going to be kid stuff, and found herself at a screening of Sin City.
http://www.toysrus.com/product/index.jsp?productI...
clearly aliens vs. predator is marketing towards children as well
http://www.toysrus.com/search/index.jsp?kwCatId=&...
so is grand theft auto
Let's put cigarettes in a candy store. No marketing to kids there. Why they're recommended for adults.
Let's put HUSTLER in a kids' bookstore. No marketing to kids there.
I'm sure cigarettes in a kids' candy store wouldn't be marketing to kids either.
All those t-shirts…
All for adults.
Both you and Debbie are being ridiculous with the American Idol reference. Running a commercial during the most popular program on television (most popular with everyone, not children) is marketing specifically to kids? Get back to me when they show WATCHMEN commercials on Noggin or during Saturday morning cartoons. (Do they even have Saturday morning cartoons anymore?)
Not adults in the way that you or I might understand or respect — just not children, John.
My comment was in reference to an earlier post of Nolte's in which he derisively quoted Anthony Lane, who said essentially the same thing Schlussel does, but more eloquently and less emotionally. The negative Lane review inspired Nolte to want to see the film, while the negative Schlussel review inspired him… to criticize some guy who criticized Schlussel!
I have no idea what cigarettes have to do with any of this, but notice how far John Nolte will go to avoid actually responding to any of the criticism of Debbie Schlussel's article. Watchmen just might be getting marketed towards kids, but I haven't seen any convincing evidence of it. And that still wouldn't excuse Schlussel's awful article or your defending it. I'm not defending selling candy cigarettes to kids, or even marketing Watchmen to kids, but you are defending a really awful review by Schlussel. But hey, I'm just a "a moron and a vapid, indecent human being" whom Schlussel would prefer drink poisonous Kool-Aid, so don't mind me.
PS Looks like Toys R Us is also selling Boris Karloff "Mummy" statues: http://www.toysrus.com/product/index.jsp?productI... You know how popular 1930s movies are with the kids these days. I bet they are making a killing on those.
PPS Replace the word "Mummy" with crack cocaine and just see how awful that toy would really be! (See, I can do it too, and is sounds just as ridiculous)
In fact, a group of me and my friends went to see it when it came out, I was 11. I saw Braveheart on my 13th birthday. But my parents were with me and they knew I was mature enough to handle it.
But the point remains valid, the movie is being marketed to kids who most certainly shouldnt' be seeing it. Comics are mostly read by adults in the coveted 20-40 demo. As for action figures, many adults collect them (either because, like me, they are giant nerds, or for sentimental purposes, also like me and toys from childhood that I won't sell)
Very true, usually made of resins or materials better suited to art then the plastics used to make toys. I happen to like my local dingy comic book shops, thank you very much :-p
I would expect Christianity Today's review to be more of the tone of Plugged In, whose review was negative, yet well-argued:
http://www.pluggedinonline.com/movies/movies/a000...
On the upside, the CT review does end with questions to get readers thinking about whether Watchmen is truly art or sensationalist rubbish.
hahahahha oh I laughed out loud at work, and got strange looks.
ad feminem? Should I have heard this very cool term before? If so, I'm sorry, I missed it, but I do love it. And would like to beat the snot out of Randi(Rocky) Rhodes and Jane Hamster.
You have kids, are they over 10? The toys ARE being marketed to kids, that's what Toys R' Us is, a Toy store. (surely you've been there) While many grown ups like to collect figurines, they are like crack to little boys. And these kind of movies are like crack to slightly bigger boys. I said upthread, I don't get all heated by most of the stuff Schussel does, to each their own, but I promise, my son would have been trying to sneak into this one when he was 14 or so. And the movie people can be very lenient. You don't have to "take" teens to anything yourself, you will find they see plenty of stuff you don't want them to see very well all on their own. And for people who take their young children to this kind of garbage, I think they need to be taken out back and caned.
SR,
You may not appreciate the advice, but I would say that I would make those few and far between. The violence, as long as it is not too graphic, or say like rape, and language, are bad, but really it is the sex scenes that seem to affect the girls the most. Just the opposite with the boys, IMO.
I think this is the first post of yours I agree with almost uniformly. As for the lunchboxes, yes kids still use them, and they particularly want the more avante garde or cool lunchbox, so these are a shoe-in. Sure all kids want to see R movies, but all R movies are NOT created equal. I would go for Jason and Die Hard 10 times over this kind of stuff. I let my kids watch a few hear and there when they were in their mid teens. My son is 19, daughter is 20, so they watch what they want now. I don't believe in shielding your kids from all of the worlds evils, but it's nice to hold back the dam to a degree.
I thought that was just me that was disturbed by that comment. I felt the need to shower ASAP.
Thanks, we've been VERY cautious with our daughter. Problem is I'm a HUGE sci-fi/action fan and I want to share that with her. And I agree with your assessment, even in PG-13 movies and we even choose those carefully, I can see her get uncomfortable with scenes that get a little too "hot" and we skip over them.
Recommended age don't mean diddly to a 9 yr old who doesn't even understand, or care why it says that, and most parents couldn't give a rat's rear less about age recommendations. When your kid flings themselves down in the floor of a toy store and has a fit, you get ready to buy them everything but heroin, and it may come to you debating that!
The 6 yr old boys in my neighborhood play GTA. It is not played by all older teens and adults, that's for sure. Even the little richy kids in my hood are into it.
"Why it's not even a toy store for kids, that's just a ruse — it's really a store for adults to gander future collectibles!"
You joke, but you're more right than you know.
The action figure side of the toy biz is right now doing the same half-deception dance the comic book biz was doing in the 90s: Wearing the guise of a children-centric market while making most of their big money off of adults continuing on the "grownup" version of their childhood hobby.
The last real action figure boom (i.e. hugely profitable "lines" of hundreds of related figures) was in the mid-80s – same time as the Watchmen/Dark Knight "adult comics" boom, incidentally. By market statistics, pre-teens of today still buy (or have bought for them) figures but not in the massive "must have every good guy and bad guy and respective vehicle!!!" way their 80s predecessors grabbed up He-Man, Transformers and G.I. Joe. (continued)
(continued)
"Kids today" spend (or have spent on them) more in the direction of trading cards, video games and iWhatever accessories, while the toy makers meet THEIR bottom line by selling Watchmen etc. toys to the now-grown onetime He-Man addicts.
Perfect example: I was IN a Toys R Us the other day (full disclosure: I maintain modest-sized collections of Godzilla and Super Mario Bros. memorabilia, these days theres a greater amount of it in regular stores at decent prices) and happened upon a "new" stock of Spider-Man figures. Most prominent among the arrivals: Dozens of "The Tarantula," the evil "Latino Spider-Man" from the 70s (think Che in a Dread Pirate Roberts bandana-mask, spider-jammies and knife-tipped boots. Really.) This character isn't in the movies, hasn't been a regular in the books for over a decade, isn't in many of the cartoons, and so on. NO ONE in the supposed "target audience" for this figure knows who it is. It exists for collectors in their 20s to 30s, whom the company KNOWS is browsing mainstream toy stores along with collector shops.
Hey, Harry, check out these Reservoir Dogs actions figures. Does that mean that Reservoir Dogs was marketed to kids, or might it suggest that there's a different audience in mind? I mean, action figures are for kidz, right?
And what kid could resist this Marlon-Brando-as-the-Godfather action figure?
Back in the 80s there were action figures and a kids cartoon based on RAMBO: FIRST BLOOD PART II (which was Rated R for violence). And of course there were commercials for said action figures that aired during other children's programming. I even remember the jingle: "Rambo… and the forces of freedom." This seemed to be a much more blatant marketing push towards kids. Do/did you have a problem with this, or is it okay since Rambo killed Commies?
Yes, I got that. To be clear, I was agreeing with you. I thought Lane made the point about the film's violence well, in contrast with Schlussel, who didn't.
Slightly off-topic, but Mike Rowe does a great segment here on dirty jobs. I could claim that it has a lot to do with right-wing culture.
John, do you have a preferred address for tips?
Yeah, John: $49 for a set, but they’re also sold separately at prices similar to the WATCHMEN doll prices, just as there are more expensive sets available for the WATCHMEN dolls.
Instead of patting yourself on the back, which you seem to want to do far, far too easily, why not dial down the jerkiness and try and consider the point with something approaching, even mildly, some good faith? The WATCHMEN figures and the Reservoir Dog dolls (as well as the Godfather action figure) are the same darn things. It’s not apples and oranges – they’re all apples.
And yes, the Reservoir Dog dolls aren’t currently available at Toys R Us, but they used to be, and a year from now, the only place you’ll be able to find the WATCHMEN dolls will be the same places that are selling the Reservoir Dogs stuff now.
Children are still not the market for this. Remember, the “biggest toystore in America" also sells videogames that aren’t meant for kids. You keep glossing over that, presumably because you’re still stuck on “DOLZ=KIDZ LOL”. I expect better.
The penis was computer-generated?
I saw the movie today and, aside from being blue, it just looked like a penis.
It didn't shoot lasers or transform into an airplane. It just hung there.
I don't want to argue with you John, so much as quibble a little. Maybe its because I'm no longer making the big media bucks and we've had to make certain sacrifices, but even so I don't know I would call $17-$20 action figures "cheap." If my six-year-old asked for one, I'd have to laugh and disappoint him yet again. ("Don't worry, son, I'll make it up to you later when I pay your therapy bills…")
One thing about Toys R Us and my son. A couple of years ago, he was really into the Justice League and JL action figures. They retailed at $4 for a single and $10 for a three pack. But many of the figures were much, much more expensive than that. They were impossible to find at Target or Toys R Us, except immediately after a shipment. And online, some of them went for $40-$50. No joke. It was ridiculous. And the 'never felt the touch of a woman' collectible crowd was to blame.
Well, one day when I was at a Toys R Us looking to pick up a birthday present for one of my son's pals, I found one of the action figures we'd been searching for. When I paid for it, the cashier asked, "Are you a collector?" And I replied, a bit annoyed, "No, an actual child is going to play with this." She told me most of the people who bought the action figures were men my age (mid-30s), except without kids. All collectors.
It's just an anecdote, I know. But I don't know too many of my son's friends who are into Spawn, either, and I still see those action figures at Toys R Us.
By the way, my take on Schlussel is here: http://blog.infinitemonkeysblog.com/?q=node/6261 I'll have a review of Watchmen up at Infinite Monkeys later.
They also are more realistic and do not look like Fisher Price people.
You would warn against trying to make Rorschach out to be conservative. Nevermind that the movie does this. See he complains about liberal and intellectuals and so is sociopath that beats up everyone he meets.
Let's see the Comedian helped the government by joining up to fight in Vietnam so….
He shoots the pregnant vietnamese woman who confronts him because she is having his child. War's over so she's no use.
He beats a women he is friends with to bloody pulp and then precedes to rape her until stopped.
And oh yeah he was on he grassy knoll shooting JFK.
These are indeed nuetral politics. All soldiers do this haven't you seen Michael Moore's movies. He's a moderate conservaive as well I take it. So nuetral in all his views.
But hey what's a little rape and emotional codependency between friends, right! That's in no way indecent or vapid. C'mon people now, Don't be a crazy!!
Oh wait ………………………
You know you're arguing that stuff sold as Toys R Us isn't aimed at kids — you know, a toy store where kids go — the biggest kids' toy store in the country.
But love the dismissal of my cigarette reference even more. Yeah, just don't get that.
But stuff at a toy store aimed at kids? What was I thinking? You guys win. Uncle.
Action figures at a toy store aimed at kids? I must've been high.
Yeah, why would kids want something way-cool like a Mummy? Why would they sell a Mummy figure at a toy store where kids shop? No kids want a monster toy…
Saw the film last night, it was very disappointing overall, visually stunning, but the acting was mediocre to bad (with a few exceptions) and character development was too forced to be told in a three hour film. Dylan music was great.
Toys and action figures can be marketed to teens and higher. Everything that is a toy is not meant for 6 year olds – some toys even have recommended ages on their containers. There is a collector's market made up of adults. Why is any of this being argued about.
But didn't enjoy the film at all.
Some toys at the toy store are for kids. Some are aimed at collectors. Some are aimed at boys. Some are aimed at girls. A toy store is for everyone.
I have a 4 year old and a 7 year old, I have not seen anything at all in the marketing that makes me believe they want me to buy any of the toys for them or take them to the film.
Debbie's review came off as angry and almost a parody of how some in the media stereotypes conservatives.
…
…For some inexplicable reason, I want to drink bleach now.
I am okay because that is her opinion. What kind of society have we become when we are so sensitive?!?
I read Schlussel's review–thought it was way over the top and mean spirited, as many of her pieces are. Her sense of high dudgeon wipes out any validity her criticisms might have. ('If you like this, you're a twisted idiot' isn't a winning debate style, if you ask me) Certainly her comments on Watchmen's violence are valid, as are Lane's, but both reviewers so clearly didn't get the material that they shouldn't have reviewed the movie without a little basic prep. I'll say this for Schlussel's reviews, though–the more she rails against the ickiness of a movie, the better it seems to do at the box office, so maybe Warner Brothers will be sending her a nice fruit basket Monday morning. As far as marketing to kids, whether they're in Toys R Us or not, I can't see kids running up to mom and dad asking for a Rorschach figure when there are 20 version of Batman next to it. A few years back Toys R Us took flak for selling Austin Powers that had a sound chip that said "do I make you horny?" I doubt many kids bought it, just as I doubt the Watchmen toys will corrupt tots on their way to the video game section.
My question was addressed to John Nolte. But since you ask, if that's how we're going to look at it, why isn't it then okay for Mr. Goldsten to say what he said? It's his opinion, isn't it?
If we're okay with this woman hollering, "MORON! IDIOT!" at everyone who dares to disagree with her, what standing could we possibly have for criticizing the left for doing the exact same thing?
Why would anyone bother defending the rantings of this lunatic? Even if she were right she'd still be wrong by virtue of being a self important hate fueled crazy woman. She thinks calling Leonardo Dicaprio Leonardo DeCRAPrio is a funny, clever joke she made up?!!!? That's straight-jacket padded room territory.
And lets not forget that she knows absolutely nothing about film and can barely string her bizarre tourettes rants into coherent paragraphs. She's possibly the worst professional critic on the web, and that's an accomplishment.
Ben, Let me start by saying that reading is fundamental. This isn't an argument over whether or not marketing to kids is right or wrong… I'm not interested in that argument. What I'm arguing is that the film is being marketed to kids.
These two geniuses keep arguing that toys in a kids toy store aren't being marketed to kids. They scour the shelves for adult video games and monster figures to back their case because they can't wrap their minds around the fact that ANYTHING sold in a kids toy store is OBVIOUSLY aimed at kids. What moron markets their goods in a kids toy store that isn't trying to sell to kids….
As someone who saw Dirty Harry in the theatre when he was 6, I'm not all that concerned with all this stuff. Debbie is. She has a right to be. And as we can see with these Toys R US toys (to begin with) she's right that it's happening and Goldstein is wrong.
I disagree with Debbie all the time. I even kinda loved the movie. That's not the point. The point is that she's an important and unique voice who the LA TIMES attempted to humiliate with lies and out of context quotes. Had they responded to her criticism with any degree of thoughtfulness or facts I wouldn't have writen this.
You should, as a parent, exercise your own discretion. Kids are not going to see an R rated movie unless you, the parent, take them to see it. Why should you care that "you're the a$$hole" for not buying them a toy? Unless they are spoiled rotten, they should be used to getting denied unnecessary, expensive luxuries.
And I do not know if you are familiar with the audience for comic books and comic book movies [especially ones based on 25 year old ultraviolent books], but they are nerds, and nerds love to buy nostalgic memorabilia like lunchboxes [do kids actually still use these?] and dolls.
Rorschach is not a conservative. He is specifically an Objectivist.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism
He is also based on the characters Mr. A and The Question
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr. A
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_(comics)
Comedian is a nihilist, and is plainly not a conservative, if you pay attention to a single thing he does [no family values] Don't try to bring partisan politics into something when it will not be productive.
Agreed. Debbie's been making overblown mountain out of cinematic molehills for years now. Her reviews are interesting to read because the show social conservatism at it's worse-vapid, churlish and unwilling to allow for disagreement.
I never really liked the Watchmen comic as much as everyone else, but I can judge the movie on it's merits, not whether or not it's "too violent" or what sort of merchendise companies put out for it.
I'm okay with moron if its deserved. One time a fellow wage slave complained to the boss "Boss, TW called me a moron." Boss looked at him and said "If TW called you that, then you deserved it."
After reading the CSM article on Limbaugh, and seeing a very long line of Insane Intimidators, I wonder if Debbie is our very own Batman, able to walk through the madness of Arkham Asylum and not be fazed. Or perhaps better yet, she's the Punisher in the crossover Batman/Punisher where the Punisher tells the Joker.
"I've got your medicine right here. A nice .45 pill."
If you're dealing with people who deliberately or naturally ape insanity, then perhaps someone like Debbie is needed.
Something missing from this particular discussion I think somebody ought to add, regarding children in theatres: THERE IS NO REASON TO BRING A BABY INTO A MOVIE THEATER. NONE.
A movie theater is a giant, dark, scary room with flashing lights, loud noises, a crowd of strange people, innumerable germs and lots of hard surfaces. It's one of the WORST possible environments for a baby, and I can't imagine a movie so vital to being seen that would warrant subjecting a baby to that or an audience to an (innevitably) angry baby. And I don't give me "I can't afford a sitter." If you're budget is such that "sitter or movie ticket" is an all-or-nothing concern, what you "can't afford" is the movie.
Don't judge the book by its cover, as the saying goes. Debbie's reasons are valid in her blog: she absolutely hates the way Hollywood churning out movies with gratuitous amount of violence, sex, immoral behaviors and anything-goes-attitudes and selling to the audience too oblivious to them. She has the obligation of informing her readers if they wish to spend hard-earned money on movies that may insult their intelligence or violate their sense of dignity.
Most movie critics leaned to the Left and have no problem letting the movie-goers go spend money on movies that insult their intelligence and violate their sense of dignity. Debbie, on the other hand, says, "STOP!"
I'm told that food critics are far more savage or brutally honest in critiquing restaurants and foods than stand-up movie critics like Debbie Schlussel.
People have done this FOREVER, MovieBob. When I worked in a theater in high school, I often picked up (dirty) diapers when we cleaned up the theater after the show. I remember seeing toddlers taken into Terminator. A few years back when my mom and I saw Passion of the Christ, a family had a three year old who became noticeably upset when the first round of beatings started, to the point where he had to be taken out, was brought back in, freaked out screaming when the really awful stuff started happening, and was thankfully taken out and never brought back. There have always been and will be parents with astoundingly bad judgement.
I don't think you understand babies. Mine tended to sleep if it was loud, particularly when they were very young. (It was the quiet of a nap being interrupted by noise that woke them.) Getting a sitter for a newborn is difficult even when you've got money, and if the mother is nursing there probably isn't a time window big enough to do *anything*. And if you think a mother of an infant has no cause to NEED to get out of the house then you're just a hater. Seriously, maliciously, a premeditated hater.
Toddlers are different. Older babies are different. But neither older babies nor toddlers are going to be traumatized by a movie, crowds, or any of that, though they will probably not want to sit still long enough and will be disruptive.
At about age 2 and 3 they're going to start noticing the movie and at that time they will not sit for a movie and they are likely, from then until quite a bit older, to become traumatized even by rated G flicks because of the noise and the hugeness of the screen.
[...] the time, I thought she was wrong. Until I read John Nolte’s column on the Big Hollywood [...]
"At any rate, Schussel is correct, this movie is not for kids and is aimed directly at them in marketing."
You are incorrect in that sentence. This movie was never and has never been aimed at children. I would think the "R" rating would prove that the film makers planned on selling this movie to ADULTS. Currently the legal age to enter an "R" rated movie is 17 so if they are getting in to view it thenthat is the fault of the movie theaters. I bought the Watchmen comic when it came out in the 80's and my current age is 42, most kids today didn't even know what the title was about.
i looove this song!! it definitly stands out!! i LOVE JB!!
Do I believe that Warner Bros. was marketing WATCHMEN to kids?
Yes.
Am I shocked or surprised?
No.
You must be logged in to post a comment.