Comments on: Boondock Saints or Sinners?

By: Maria

Maria — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 02:54:03 +0000

I disagree. Batman isn’t presented as a hero not to be questioned at all. In fact in most quality comics the heros are not unquestionable moral heros, the reader in many times thinks this may not be right. In the Dark Knight Batman for example phone tapps all the people in Gotham City in order to find Joker, this is very much against many people’s concept of right to privacy, a theme which has been very controversial in particular in the US the past few years. This is a theme that most people get to be divided i order what they opinion is – is it right to violate everybody’s rights in order to find one bad guy? I cannot agree to Batman’s justification, and I think most people find it hard to agree to aswell. As shown in the movie, Morgan Freeman’s character cannot agree to it either, which shows that Batman’s choice is not something to be mindlesss accepted. If you want a straightforward hero, try Punisher. Modern comics are way more morally complex than your article suggests.

Liked Boondog Saints, though I cannot come over the religious fanatiscm. Oh well, it’s a fun movie anways.

By: McManus

McManus — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 02:45:33 +0000

I think it’s important to keep in mind that the movie parallels what the IRA needed to do after the war for independence in Ireland. When the leaders had to settle for peace without the 6 Northern counties, they left behind thousands of Catholics. The IRA became the Provisional IRA to protect these Catholic communities from a completely Protestant police force and other loyalists. There was no protection of rights for the Catholic in Northern Ireland with the police. They treated the Catholics like filthy dogs who were immoral and had no rights. If they were brought through the legal system, it was not fairly. Thus, some members of the IRA stayed behind to act as “police” for the Catholic communities. Part of their job included keeping out drugs and such of their community. Even to this day, they take care of their own. Although it’s hard to glorify vigilantes, sometimes they are necessary. The Boondocks Saints (the original) extrapolates that necessity into Southie – another instance where the Irish banded together and were subject to gangs and corruption.

But I can’t comment on Boondocks Saints II as I haven’t seen it. I was too afraid it would ruin the awesomeness of the first one.

By: jemand

jemand — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:59:44 +0000

I’m going to go completely off the superhero angle and talk about the Mentalist (mainly because I just finished the last episode). A couple episodes back there was a vigilante who killed a violent, serial, child rapist who had just gotten out of prison (5 years for like 7 violent rapes or something). The killer was a psychologist who knew the guy’s mindset and he would do it again. The show came down horribly hard on him– vigilantism NOT ok.

This rubbed me the wrong way so much, because in pretty much ever episode Jane breaks the evidentiary chain about 5 times, pretty much destroying evidence, using it so that only his word is what links the crucial piece of evidence to the actual criminal, etc. He takes the law into his hands *all the damn time* and is seen as a great guy for it. I don’t like the inconsistency much more than I don’t like the vigilantism in stuff like Batman.

Either do it all right or set it in a fantasy world. Otherwise it’s just annoying.

By: Elemenope

Elemenope — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:38:10 +0000

Rorschach has this in spades. In both the book and the movie. For my part, I thought he came off as a complete monomaniacal sociopath in the film, not "cool" in the traditional sense at all. Some of the things he *did* followed the rule of cool, but he isn't a guy you'd want as a next-door neighbor, it is made abundantly made clear.

By: vorjack

vorjack — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:04:38 +0000

Rorschach’s a beloved character,

I seem to remember an interview with Moore when the Watchmen series was first being published. Moore said that he’s been getting mail from people who were big fans of Rorschach. IIRC, Moore commented that this made him want to stop writing the series. He’d gone out of his way to make Rorschach unlikable, but here were these people who thought he was so cool because he could hold off the police.

By: rA

rA — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:11:59 +0000

1) Adrian is almost superhuman, other people (Dan) don’t believe it’s possible.
2) The “psychic squid” is a man-made horror, not a supernatural creature.
3) They totally have powers. Mainly super speed and super strength.
4) Yes, Dan and Laurie fight off a small gang of thugs. They are good at fighting and probably have been in more fights than their attackers. Totally plausible.
5) They were not cool in the book. Rorschach is good case study: he is a dick; he is totally batshit insane; he is delusional (“spotless gloves” that obviously aren’t spotless, etc); he is barely sympathetic at all, pretty much only because he is ruthless.

I could go on and on, but I suspect this is like religion, you already know what’s right: the depictions of the Watchmen characters in the movie are similar to the depictions in the book. I’m telling you, they’re not. You read something into it that isn’t there. The masked adventurers in the book are completely normal human beings.

By: Skepacabra

Skepacabra — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:48:36 +0000

Wait…wait…wait. Hold on a second. You’re saying Adrian doesn’t catch a bullet in the book? And I seem to remember a giant Lovecraftian psychic squid in the book. None of them do have actual powers other than Manhattan. And they all manage to do their share of serious combat in the books too. The only additional fight that seems added to me was Blake’s battle in the beginning, which was an effective way to start the film. Everything else was on the page. Also, they were “cool” in the book too. Rorschach’s a beloved character, as is The Comedian. And Dan is never real “cool.” I’d also argue that the debatable “coolness” of the characters (which I think was always there to begin with) adds rather than subtracts to the overall message. We’re culturally brought up to view superheroes as cool (except Aquaman). Having them seem cool on the surface only further magnifies the great divide between our expectations of what superheroes are and the underlying reality of what kind of people would choose that life.

By: Esseff

Esseff — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:03:40 +0000

How would you view someone like Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, Vladimir Lenin, Ward Churchill, etc, etc? Individuals who are either going outside established law, or advocating its use in certain scenarios? Certainly not to say that these individuals are any more than human, or incorruptible… quite the opposite. The point is the order of law is not black and white, which sounds redundant but is often overlooked.

By: MScott

MScott — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:21:16 +0000

Ned Kelly.

By: Siberia

Siberia — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:30:22 +0000

The biggest one is that the masked crusaders are superheroes. They have super speed, super strength, impossible toys, cool-looking costumes… in the book, they are not even anti-heroes, just pathetic people in silly masks who beat up other people. The only one of them (Dr. Manhattan aside) who is even remotely heroic turns out to be a villain. They suck and they fail.

Exactly.

Methinks the greatest advantage of Watchmen is that it shows several different perspectives on the vigilantism issue and the reason why people – normal people – would do it.

Also, the only superdude hardly cares (though I think Dr Manhattan could still be better) and the rich playboy villain wins.

By: rA

rA — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:45:01 +0000

In the book, no one (except Dr. Manhattan again, who has nothing in common with any of the other characters) has powers of any kind.

By: rA

rA — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:29:10 +0000

Another example, microcosm, is that at the beginning of the book, Rorschach shoots his grappling gun (that Dan made for him, plausible) up the side of Comedian's building, and then climbs up to his balcony. In the movie, Rorschach shoots the gun and it pulls him up, like Batman. There is stuff like this throughout.

By: rA

rA — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:18:35 +0000

Er, oops… fixed formatting:

I think Watchmen really nailed it better than any other comic book film…

Oh, I totally and strongly disagree. I love the book, hated the movie. They got lots and lots of little details right, amazingly right, and in that sense it’s accurate, but the movie missed the mark in broad ways. In the movie, they’re cool. In the book, they’re not.

The biggest one is that the masked crusaders are superheroes. They have super speed, super strength, impossible toys, cool-looking costumes… in the book, they are not even anti-heroes, just pathetic people in silly masks who beat up other people. The only one of them (Dr. Manhattan aside) who is even remotely heroic turns out to be a villain. They suck and they fail.

A case in point is the (attempted) rape scene. In the book, a large man who attacks a small woman, one punch breaks three of her ribs. In the movie, a superhero attacks another superhero, they do super karate chops and kicks back and forth a while and he wins. It’s nice that she fights back and all, but the message is totally different. In the book, he is a rapist and a bully. In the movie, he is just a rapist.

(if a mod wants to fix my tags above and delete this comment, please do)

By: rA

rA — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:17:22 +0000

I think Watchmen really nailed it better than any other comic book film…
Oh, I totally and strongly disagree. I love the book, hated the movie. They got lots and lots of little details right, amazingly right, and in that sense it’s accurate, but the movie missed the mark in broad ways. In the movie, they’re cool. In the book, they’re not.

The biggest one is that the masked crusaders are superheroes. They have super speed, super strength, impossible toys, cool-looking costumes… in the book, they are not even anti-heroes, just pathetic people in silly masks who beat up other people. The only one of them (Dr. Manhattan aside) who is even remotely heroic turns out to be a villain. They suck and they fail.

A case in point is the (attempted) rape scene. In the book, a large man who attacks a small woman, one punch breaks three of her ribs. In the movie, a superhero attacks another superhero, they do super karate chops and kicks back and forth a while and he wins. It’s nice that she fights back and all, but the message is totally different. In the book, he is a rapist and a bully. In the movie, he is just a rapist.

By: Skepacabra

Skepacabra — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:09:50 +0000

I think Watchmen really nailed it better than any other comic book film because every character has their own values and their own visions of how to save the world. And they all think they’re right. And ultimately, the characters all face an impossible moral dilemma for which there is no right answer and for which either choice they make compromises their moral authority while we must accept that the villain of the story’s crime, as gruesome as it is, arguably saves the world. It’s hard to argue with the villain’s results. It forces one to ask, can the ends ever justify the means, and if so, at what point does that become an acceptable or necessary evil? And that just scratches the surface. I’m also particularly proud of The Comedian’s line that it takes a room full of morons to think the world’s problems are small enough for them to solve.

Batman and Superman are very interesting to examine as well. While Batman has that moral ambiguity to a point (though at the end of the day I think we are clearly meant to look up to him), Superman retains that Golden Age romanticism of a hero that is the proverbial boyscout. We still see Superman as this uncorruptable guy who can do no wrong. He helps little old ladies cross the street. He instructs kids to stay in stay and stay away from drugs. He’s like a motivational speaker promoting wholesome values. But at the same time, we’d be almost powerless to stop him if he weren’t so benign. And though we’ve come to expect Superman to have the good character to turn himself in if he were responsible for serious harm because that’s the way he’s written, there isn’t something unsettling about anyone wielding that much power no matter how moral they appear to be.

But ultimately, I still find positive moral lessons in these comic books. Superman’s character is a great model to strive for, as is Batman’s unwillingness to employ lethal force against his opponents. And while Superman represents a seemingly impossible moral ideal to live up to, Spiderman represents a hero that looks more like us, guided mostly by a simple sense of personal responsibility and recognizing the responsibility we have for each other in society.