Watchdudes

From the For-someone-who-doesn't-claim-to-be-a-geek-you-sure-mention-a-number-of-what-is-stereotypically-of-interest-to-them department:

A while back I overheard a conversation one day at lunch where four young men who had all seen the Watchmen movie discussed it. The one who brought it up sounded alarmingly like the Spicoli character in Fast Times at Ridgemont High (something of a stereotypical California surfer dialect—not that any actual surfers from California or elsewhere sound like that but as the mode of speech has been propounded by the movie and TV industry)—which is to say he didn't sound terribly bright. Not that he was stupid, just not the sharpest tack in the proverbial box.

He seemed to have enjoyed the film once he got into the mode of storytelling, which was apparently somewhat exaggerated. One of his companions noted having not liked the film, and it was soon revealed in the conversation that this man was someone who had read and enjoyed the graphic novel (and presumably was disappointed in the ways that the movie did not live up to his expectations).

A third member of the group then chimed in about the second man (the "reader"), saying "So you're a member of the geek armada." This was offered very matter-of-factly, as though having heard it elsewhere. It seemed mildly pejorative.

The "reader" must have suggested reading the graphic novel, because the "surfer" retorted with "I'm not going to read a comic book." That was definitely pejorative. He elaborated on his rationale for seeing the movie but not reading the book. "When people say the book is better they make it out like the way they imagined it in their mind was better than the way the film maker did it."

Clearly he was generalizing here, because as a graphic novel, the reader did not have to visualize anything; the story was told in drawn panels on a page, not as mere text. But certainly with conventional novels those who would use their imagination to envision the world described by the author are less important than the manner employed by Hollywood.

The "surfer" did bring up something about the movie that all four of the participants seemed to be in agreement about: That the inclusion of some female nudity in the film was good. It was not merely for the prurient reasons young men would appreciate that, but also because a lesser movie would have shied away from including that in the theatrical release in the interest of getting a more box office-friendly PG-13 rather than the R the movie is rated. It was a refreshing artistic decision.

Of course, that same rationale could be applied to Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle, which also featured a scene with Malin Akerman's naked breasts. But that movie didn't open at #1, and featured no costumed heroes. But it did have Neil Patrick Harris, who went on to play Dr. Horrible in the web series "Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog"—so it's ultimately remarkably similar to what conceivably was unanimously worthwhile about Watchmen.

And there was no book to which it could be compared.

They must have really liked that. Especially the "surfer" (even though that would only be reinforcing the hideous stereotype that his mode of speech had established).

And thus we arrive back at the justification I used for not re-reading Watchmen before seeing the movie (which, no, I did not go to opening weekend). I didn't want to remember it too well and have the differences between that and the movie spoil my response to the film.

I am not ready to take up arms for the "geek armada." Not that I would dare oppose them; I'd prefer to eschew any battle altogether.

In the end, we can conclude this:
In the debate over whether movie was okay on its own or a pale imitation of the book, both sides apparently can agree on one thing: applauding the inclusion of boobies.