Just To Be Clear

email this story
read comments (18)
post a comment

To double-underline that I have no dog in the Watchmen hunt, I'm stating an obvious interest in posting any other reactions to the film -- pro, con, whatever. Even a submission on the level of that detestable 2.16 article by Nerdworld's Matt Selman would be of interest. Obviously there's more to Watchmen than the opinion of one journalist colleague or some alpha-brained Simpsons contributor. I've been told that another critique will land in my inbox fairly soon so I hope others will follow.

Has anyone noticed, incidentally, that Selman hasn't written a word on Nerdworld since yesterday afternoon's blow-up? What a lazy fuddy-dud candy-ass he must be. Can you imagine being silent after igniting a firestorm of this sort? Is Selman hiding out? Is he working the tension off at a local workout place? Did be buy groceries early last evening at Whole Foods and then go out to dinner with friends, with whom he drank California wine and laughed uproariously at their jokes?

Harris on "Re-Visioned" Connection<< previous | next >>The Bucks & The Challenge

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on February 17, 2009 at 8:34 AM

comment #1

loyal says ...

What are the odds that the next review will fail somewhere between "Best Movie EVER" and "Staggering Failure?"

Posted by loyal at February 17, 2009 9:17 AM

comment #2

Midwest Doug says ...

Grossman posts to Nerdworld with roughly 3-5x the frequency of Selman, so I'm not surprised. Or should he be defending himself against the wolves of Wells and Faraci?

Selman saw Watchmen. Selman had his reaction. Selman told editors. Could he post his reaction without breaking embargo? Compromise reached. Jeff reads. Jeff reacts, as do many others.

Selman's piece doesn't strike me as any more of a review than the "impressions" Jeff provides when he's under embargo. I still don't understand all the ruckus; Selman had a fanboy reaction and identified himself as such. And he's not a Time movie reviewer.

Posted by Midwest Doug at February 17, 2009 9:18 AM

comment #3

SlimAthletic says ...

Matt Selman wants to fight you, Jeff. What are your winning chances?

Silly that he doesn't consider himself press when he works for Time.

Posted by SlimAthletic at February 17, 2009 10:05 AM

comment #4

Rich S. says ...

Between this post and the recent trip to Oxford, Jeffrey seems really eager to engage in some fisticuffs. Maybe Uwe Boll is still interested.

Posted by Rich S. at February 17, 2009 10:19 AM

comment #5

Rich S. says ...

I'm also shocked, SHOCKED that AICN hasn't chimed in on this yet. (Yes, folks, that last statement was indeed sarcasm.)

Posted by Rich S. at February 17, 2009 10:21 AM

comment #6

Colin says ...

For not having a, "dog in this race" you seem pretty obsessed with the embargo buster review, if it had reamed the film would you be this angry?

Posted by Colin at February 17, 2009 10:32 AM

comment #7

Ponderer says ...

Some reactions on AICN are starting to come in. This pretty positive review just got posted:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/40148

Posted by Ponderer at February 17, 2009 11:01 AM

comment #8

Jeffrey Wells says ...

For the most part AICN correspondents probably can't be trusted to write about the cinematic effectiveness of Watchmen. Too many of them are emotionally embedded in the lore of Alan Moore and CG fantasy flicks, etc. You need someone cold and hard and dispassionate to review this thing, and that means no graphic-novel freaks.

Posted by Jeffrey Wells at February 17, 2009 1:18 PM

comment #9

Rich S. says ...

And, of course, the guy's name is Ramses II, aka, Ozymandias.

Posted by Rich S. at February 17, 2009 1:26 PM

comment #10

Gordon27 says ...

If Warner Brothers wants to enforce an embargo, and this guy is an employee of Time Magazine, and published that, obviously WB doesn't consider it a review, right? I mean, the biggest movie WB has this year, I'm sure the editors at Time put in a courtesy call. That's just common synergy.

Posted by Gordon27 at February 17, 2009 1:47 PM

comment #11

Rich S. says ...

"I mean, the biggest movie WB has this year"

I think perhaps the Harry Potter crowd might take issue with that statement.

Posted by Rich S. at February 17, 2009 2:13 PM

comment #12

Ponderer says ...

"For the most part AICN correspondents probably can't be trusted to write about the cinematic effectiveness of Watchmen. Too many of them are emotionally embedded in the lore of Alan Moore and CG fantasy flicks, etc. You need someone cold and hard and dispassionate to review this thing, and that means no graphic-novel freaks."

Sure - was just posting and and all reactions as you requested.

You pose an interesting dilemma, though. Is an enthusiast for any form to be discounted if a film deals with their subject matter? Like, is a die-hard baseball fan unreliable in terms of judging a baseball film? Where is the line?

I don't mean any of this in a confrontational sense - I'm simply curious where people think the line is drawn between subjective analysis and compromised opinion.

Posted by Ponderer at February 17, 2009 2:52 PM

comment #13

Colin says ...

I don't mean any of this in a confrontational sense - I'm simply curious where people think the line is drawn between subjective analysis and compromised opinion. - Ponderer

If anything I think "fanboys" would be far more critical of the work than anything else.

Posted by Colin at February 17, 2009 3:42 PM

comment #14

Gordon27 says ...

"I think perhaps the Harry Potter crowd might take issue with that statement."

Maybe. Maybe not. I think an argument could be made that WB has a much bigger vested interest in 'Watchmen', since they own the book and the merchandise rights themselves.

At any rate, that's quibbling, unless you really think that it being possibly as low as the second biggest movie WB releases this year means that Time magazine wouldn't bother to call their bosses to make sure this was okay?

Posted by Gordon27 at February 17, 2009 7:03 PM

comment #15