Jon was a god. He followed Jesus's journey to a T basically. He was an unexplainable accident at first. Then he was declared a superhero, like a prophet. Was then proclaimed a God on national television. J.o.n. Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus spent three days in hell, Jon spent three days on mars (i think I don't remember the time frame).
As for the religion is a threat stuff;
This all happens in another universe where we won in Vietnam, and from there problems started brewing. But if you look at it as if Jon is Jesus, and that man did declare Jon a God on TV, then the religion is what won them Vietnam. From there Nixon was able to turn the country into an empire, simply because God was on our side. But having God on our side didn't stop the Russians from making threats and arming themselves. God was their only solution, and it wasn't working.
The only thing that stopped them from fighting each other, was banding together and expelling god from society. Also, they both left earth for the same reason, because they thought it was best for humanity. One died for the sins of humanity, while another left so we could once again rely on each other.
But the message with the way Jon leaves is that depending on some mystical figure that is unable to connect with humanity to save you from yourself is only going to lead to you falling back on nothing. But if you depend on the people who surround you to help you in life, you'll find a much sturdier base.
But I guess you guys don't agree.
Filler Inc. on
0
Options
AJRSome guy who wrestlesNorwichRegistered Userregular
Move past the awkward, I'll leave you to your precious thread.
[tiny]Assholes.[/tiny]
Man I got your back Filler. That isn't a commonly accepted theme from the book but I think you make a strong case for it, whereas everyone else is dumping on it without providing any counter-analysis whatsoever.
Move past the awkward, I'll leave you to your precious thread.
[tiny]Assholes.[/tiny]
Man I got your back Filler. That isn't a commonly accepted theme from the book but I think you make a strong case for it, whereas everyone else is dumping on it without providing any counter-analysis whatsoever.
Honestly, never read the books, so that may be where the issue lies. I don't know the source material as well as the others, so the movie could have deviated and I wouldn't know.
Alan Moore is so fucking muddled and vague and need of a proper editor in the book that you can hardly lay claim to one theme or another
He toys with probably 50 throughout the series and barely manages to emphasize the watchmaker god one above the rest
dude straight up cannot kill his darlings
as a result I'm pretty OK with a wide range of thematic interpretation.
the main problem with Filler's interpretation isn't with as much with how he sees Jon, but how far off base he is about Jesus just so he can pigeonhole Jon into being a Christ figure
Alan Moore is so fucking muddled and vague and need of a proper editor in the book that you can hardly lay claim to one theme or another
He toys with probably 50 throughout the series and barely manages to emphasize the watchmaker god one above the rest
dude straight up cannot kill his darlings
as a result I'm pretty OK with a wide range of thematic interpretation.
the main problem with Filler's interpretation isn't with as much with how he sees Jon, but how far off base he is about Jesus just so he can pigeonhole Jon into being a Christ figure
Well, I'll give you that. My knowledge of Christ is tiny, but if you could be more specific I might see where you're coming from.
It was incredibly interesting, and I really need to see it again to get more out of it, both on a thematic level and to analyze as a movie.
At the barest level, I commend Snyder for making a movie that was unrelentingly Not-Hollywood. They clearly rejected Hollywood tropes and bullshit at basically every turn and that requires tremendous balls. He also managed to convey so much of the same experience of reading the book, even to me, someone who's already read it. Even though I know what's coming, the scene with the kidnapper and Rorschach and the little girl made me incredibly uncomfortable, and even kind of nauseous. To re-create those feelings -- of awe, discomfort, humor -- and make them new again, is a serious credit to him as a director.
Also, it takes talent to create something so faithful both in literal terms and in spirit to the source material.
As a movie though, my feelings towards it are very complex. Was it good or bad? As someone who has read the book, I don't know if I can honestly answer that. I think someone who's never read it might be so confused that on some level it just fails at basic storytelling. I'm not sure about this, though.
Some of the acting felt stilted and uneven, maybe wooden. However, I think this is actually intentional. When Sally says "Guess he finally got his punch-line" you kind of want to groan, but that's straight from the book. Some of that melodramatic dialogue works in a comic book, but not so much in a movie. At the same time, when all these moments of strained dialogue occur, Snyder resists the Hollywood impulse to go for EMOTING and melodrama, and restrains his actors, letting the lines be the lines.
In the end, it was something I've never really seen before on screen, and for that alone I give the movie a ton of credit. Was it really even a movie? I'm not really sure, so it's hard to say if it was a good or bad movie. All I know is I enjoyed the hell out of it
Alan Moore is so fucking muddled and vague and need of a proper editor in the book that you can hardly lay claim to one theme or another
He toys with probably 50 throughout the series and barely manages to emphasize the watchmaker god one above the rest
dude straight up cannot kill his darlings
as a result I'm pretty OK with a wide range of thematic interpretation.
the main problem with Filler's interpretation isn't with as much with how he sees Jon, but how far off base he is about Jesus just so he can pigeonhole Jon into being a Christ figure
Well, I'll give you that. My knowledge of Christ is tiny, but if you could be more specific I might see where you're coming from.
you pretty much completely fucked up in just about everything you say about Jesus in an attempt to say Jon is a Christ figure
you just said it yourself, you don't know shit about Jesus
so you can't really compare Jon to someone you don't know enough of to even talk about
whether he was real or not
Alan Moore is so fucking muddled and vague and need of a proper editor in the book that you can hardly lay claim to one theme or another
He toys with probably 50 throughout the series and barely manages to emphasize the watchmaker god one above the rest
dude straight up cannot kill his darlings
as a result I'm pretty OK with a wide range of thematic interpretation.
the main problem with Filler's interpretation isn't with as much with how he sees Jon, but how far off base he is about Jesus just so he can pigeonhole Jon into being a Christ figure
Well, I'll give you that. My knowledge of Christ is tiny, but if you could be more specific I might see where you're coming from.
you pretty much completely fucked up in just about everything you say about Jesus in an attempt to say Jon is a Christ figure
you just said it yourself, you don't know shit about Jesus
so you can't really compare Jon to someone you don't know enough of to even talk about
whether he was real or not
Well really you don't need to make it about Jesus. The rest of his analysis can still hold up if you take out the Jesus analogue part. I think some of us just get overtrained by English teachers to find Christ-symbols in literary works. Not that they don't exist, but not every fucking book has one come on already.
However the point about religion being presented as a threat to unite against is an interesting theme and one I haven't heard much of before.
Alan Moore is so fucking muddled and vague and need of a proper editor in the book that you can hardly lay claim to one theme or another
He toys with probably 50 throughout the series and barely manages to emphasize the watchmaker god one above the rest
dude straight up cannot kill his darlings
as a result I'm pretty OK with a wide range of thematic interpretation.
the main problem with Filler's interpretation isn't with as much with how he sees Jon, but how far off base he is about Jesus just so he can pigeonhole Jon into being a Christ figure
Well, I'll give you that. My knowledge of Christ is tiny, but if you could be more specific I might see where you're coming from.
you pretty much completely fucked up in just about everything you say about Jesus in an attempt to say Jon is a Christ figure
you just said it yourself, you don't know shit about Jesus
so you can't really compare Jon to someone you don't know enough of to even talk about
whether he was real or not
Well, not really. I mean both Jon and Jesus were conceived through miracles. Immaculate conception is a miracle right? Well, what would you call a man piecing himself back together after being torn apart at the molecular level? I'd call that a miracle. Both figures dazzled the crowds with mystical feats, one turned water into wine and multiplied fishes and loaves, the other developed a supposedly free energy source. Both were destroyed by the people they were trying to help. Only one was killed and the other was demonized. Either way they are both supposed to be in the sky above us watching us. I'd say at the very least, there are enough parallels to basic Christ knowledge.
Also, telling me I'm wrong does not prove I'm wrong. I'm just asking you to have the courtesy to point out one or two flaws in what I saw. I'm not saying debunk every last one of them, but say something like, 'Well jesus didn't actually turn wine to water, that's a myth' and I might understand better as to why I'm wrong.
Filler Inc. on
0
Options
Bloods EndBlade of TyshallePunch dimensionRegistered Userregular
edited March 2009
I wonder when Synder is going to make the movie he really wants to make. 100% slow-mo.
Bloods End on
0
Options
Sars_BoyRest, You Are The Lightning.Registered Userregular
edited March 2009
that's gonna be his next one with all the hot chicks
I like Filler's theory. I don't think Jon's life paralleled Jesus' event-for-event or anything, but you'd be hard pressed to write a character like Jon's and not have some religious allusions.
Also, I liked the song choice of "Hallelujah", it was the way the sex scene itself was filmed that bothered me a bit. A good sex scene is not only erotic but can tell volumes about the characters within it, this one missed its chance with the latter (Malin Ackerman took care of the former however).
Okay so I saw this movie today at the imax and wow it was amazing. It needs a second watch, because it is a lot to take in, I watched it with a friend and my girlfriend. My friend has read the comic, as have I, my girlfriend didn't.
She said it was an interesting movie but at times it became really hard to follow and as a result she became bored towards the end. I can understand this, it had a lot going on and demanded a huge amount of attention to people who didn't read the comic. She also gave the comment "blue man penis is blue".
Oh and my heart was breaking right at the end. Which didn't happen in the comic for me, so that says something.
Did anyone else think that the sound quality on this movie was amazing?
There were parts in the movie where I would hear people talking in the background and I was going to turn around and yell at people because I thought it was the group behind me or something.
Posts
Swing and a miss, champ
Ba-dum-tish
wat
First thing I thought when he said this.
minor complaint though
As for the religion is a threat stuff;
This all happens in another universe where we won in Vietnam, and from there problems started brewing. But if you look at it as if Jon is Jesus, and that man did declare Jon a God on TV, then the religion is what won them Vietnam. From there Nixon was able to turn the country into an empire, simply because God was on our side. But having God on our side didn't stop the Russians from making threats and arming themselves. God was their only solution, and it wasn't working.
The only thing that stopped them from fighting each other, was banding together and expelling god from society. Also, they both left earth for the same reason, because they thought it was best for humanity. One died for the sins of humanity, while another left so we could once again rely on each other.
But the message with the way Jon leaves is that depending on some mystical figure that is unable to connect with humanity to save you from yourself is only going to lead to you falling back on nothing. But if you depend on the people who surround you to help you in life, you'll find a much sturdier base.
But I guess you guys don't agree.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram
Have your thread back, babies.
Move past the awkward, I'll leave you to your precious thread.
[tiny]Assholes.[/tiny]
Author's intent is a bullshit measure of thematic elements in a story anyway. Derrida ftw.
Man I got your back Filler. That isn't a commonly accepted theme from the book but I think you make a strong case for it, whereas everyone else is dumping on it without providing any counter-analysis whatsoever.
edit: this means I'm entitled to fellatio
Honestly, never read the books, so that may be where the issue lies. I don't know the source material as well as the others, so the movie could have deviated and I wouldn't know.
Alan Moore is so fucking muddled and vague and need of a proper editor in the book that you can hardly lay claim to one theme or another
He toys with probably 50 throughout the series and barely manages to emphasize the watchmaker god one above the rest
dude straight up cannot kill his darlings
as a result I'm pretty OK with a wide range of thematic interpretation.
Well, I'll give you that. My knowledge of Christ is tiny, but if you could be more specific I might see where you're coming from.
It was incredibly interesting, and I really need to see it again to get more out of it, both on a thematic level and to analyze as a movie.
At the barest level, I commend Snyder for making a movie that was unrelentingly Not-Hollywood. They clearly rejected Hollywood tropes and bullshit at basically every turn and that requires tremendous balls. He also managed to convey so much of the same experience of reading the book, even to me, someone who's already read it. Even though I know what's coming, the scene with the kidnapper and Rorschach and the little girl made me incredibly uncomfortable, and even kind of nauseous. To re-create those feelings -- of awe, discomfort, humor -- and make them new again, is a serious credit to him as a director.
Also, it takes talent to create something so faithful both in literal terms and in spirit to the source material.
As a movie though, my feelings towards it are very complex. Was it good or bad? As someone who has read the book, I don't know if I can honestly answer that. I think someone who's never read it might be so confused that on some level it just fails at basic storytelling. I'm not sure about this, though.
Some of the acting felt stilted and uneven, maybe wooden. However, I think this is actually intentional. When Sally says "Guess he finally got his punch-line" you kind of want to groan, but that's straight from the book. Some of that melodramatic dialogue works in a comic book, but not so much in a movie. At the same time, when all these moments of strained dialogue occur, Snyder resists the Hollywood impulse to go for EMOTING and melodrama, and restrains his actors, letting the lines be the lines.
In the end, it was something I've never really seen before on screen, and for that alone I give the movie a ton of credit. Was it really even a movie? I'm not really sure, so it's hard to say if it was a good or bad movie. All I know is I enjoyed the hell out of it
you just said it yourself, you don't know shit about Jesus
so you can't really compare Jon to someone you don't know enough of to even talk about
whether he was real or not
Well really you don't need to make it about Jesus. The rest of his analysis can still hold up if you take out the Jesus analogue part. I think some of us just get overtrained by English teachers to find Christ-symbols in literary works. Not that they don't exist, but not every fucking book has one come on already.
However the point about religion being presented as a threat to unite against is an interesting theme and one I haven't heard much of before.
Also, telling me I'm wrong does not prove I'm wrong. I'm just asking you to have the courtesy to point out one or two flaws in what I saw. I'm not saying debunk every last one of them, but say something like, 'Well jesus didn't actually turn wine to water, that's a myth' and I might understand better as to why I'm wrong.
Also, I liked the song choice of "Hallelujah", it was the way the sex scene itself was filmed that bothered me a bit. A good sex scene is not only erotic but can tell volumes about the characters within it, this one missed its chance with the latter (Malin Ackerman took care of the former however).
She said it was an interesting movie but at times it became really hard to follow and as a result she became bored towards the end. I can understand this, it had a lot going on and demanded a huge amount of attention to people who didn't read the comic. She also gave the comment "blue man penis is blue".
Oh and my heart was breaking right at the end. Which didn't happen in the comic for me, so that says something.
Did anyone else think that the sound quality on this movie was amazing?
There were parts in the movie where I would hear people talking in the background and I was going to turn around and yell at people because I thought it was the group behind me or something.
waiting until tomorrow to catch it in IMAX is killing me
Now now, beggars can't be choosers.
Yes, this is true
stop and go at some parts
and the relationships could have been more developed
Tumblr blargh