Several people now have pointed me toward an article at DebbieSchlussel.com Never heard of her before, and after this, I'll be happy if I never hear from her again.

I have to imagine she's a "someone," or I wouldn't be getting so many links to her article. I'm in an IM window right now asking someone "who the frack is this person?" The response is merely, "she's insane." Yeah, no kidding. I've since read her Wikipedia page, and now I fully understand.

I agree with her statement, "If you take your kids to see 'Watchmen,' you're a moron." After that, the article is infuriatingly misguided, and it misrepresents the film.

The article, "The Watchmen Lie: Hollywood Sends More Depravity Your Kids' Way Costumed as 'Superhero' Flick," explains how this movie isn't for kids, should never have been marketed to kids, and should have been rated NC-17. A rather ironic title for an article full of lies.

After having been questioned by enough people as to whether the things she listed are true, I'm going to debunk those rumors once and for all.

WARNING: If you've never read the book, you may consider some of this information to be spoilerish. Of course, if you've already read her article, I don't think I'm adding any new info.

---

Dear Debbie:

It's idiots like you who make conservatives and anyone with religious beliefs look bad.

Being Marketed as a Kid's Film
Sorry Debbie, but despite your vicious and short-sighted assertions to the contrary in your responses to your post's comments, this was never marketed as a kid's film.

What you don't seem to understand is that some adults like comic books. We grew up on them. This movie was made for us. I've been bombarded with advertising for this film, and I can honestly say I've seen nothing, anywhere, that indicates this is being marketed to kids.

The fact that it involves superheroes (rather, costumed people and one superhero) does not equate to it being a kids' flim. In your follow-up posting -- just as blindly idiotic as your first -- you point out that a 15-year-old wanted to go see it. How could he possibly want to go see it if it wasn't being marketed to kids?

Seriously? That's your criteria? Apparently you haven't spent much time around teenagers. Teenagers are trying to be adults. They want to drink. They want to smoke. They want to watch porn. They want to go travel on their own. They want to see restricted films. Whether they should or not isn't the point — the reality is that this happens. Even when those things aren't marketed to them.

Enough on that. Let's move on to the meat of your article...

Yes, the movie's violent. What you can't seem to wrap your feeble little mind around is the fact that the violence tells a story. Not interested in that story? Fine. But don't unilaterally attack everyone who is. There's a point — yes, even a moral — to the story. And sure, some of the violence is even gratuitous (though fewer scenes than most may believe). But your blind, alarmist ranting has blown the whole thing out of proportion.

Dear Readers:

To everyone else interested in the film but perhaps put off by this raving lunatic's article, or perhaps afraid of what disturbing visual images may be permanently burned into your mind as a result of this film, here's what you should really expect, given as a point-by-point response to the list in her article.

(Please note that I'm going to give specific (yet brief and minimal) details for these scenes — anti-spoiler purists beware.)

Dogs Fighting
She says there are dogs "fighting over, tearing apart, and eating a six-year-old girl." That's somewhat true. We see a few shots of dogs playing tug-of-war with something. It's later revealed to be a leg bone with a girl's sock & shoe attached. That being said, the visual itself isn't particuarly graphic (there's no blood squirting or flesh being torn apart -- it's basically a bone prop with a shoe).

Like with many scenes in the film, it's not the literal visual image that's disturbing so much as it is the context and our minds filling in the blanks. It's not so much "eww, dogs are eating human bones." Instead, it's "holy crap... that sicko fed the girl to the dogs" — which, to be clear, isn't ever seen in the film.

Man's head being axed
Yes, it's a close-up. However, with the exception of the first strike, it's all in silhouette. Yes, it's one of the more graphic moments of the film but it's nothing most of us haven't seen in movies like 300 or any garden-variety horror film.

Dr. Manhattan vaporizing people
Yup, it happens. Yup, it's more graphic than in the trailers. Think of the scenes from the trailers, but add blood spraying. In one scene, there's goo (and a couple of bones) dripping from the ceiling. It's fantastic enough that I didn't find it disturbing at all.

Dr. Manhattan's penis
Yes, it's there. Frankly, people are making too much of a big deal about this. It was never gratuitous in the film. Yes, it was there, but it's not like it was swinging around in circles or anything.

You have a being who's effectively beyond human emotion, whether that be shame, guilt, social tact, fear of what other people think, or even sexual interest. Even when he's interacting romantically with Laurie, it feels like it's so he can get a better scientific understanding of humanity (and perhaps that he's still human enough to have a void to fill, even if he doesn't understand it). So tell me, why would he think to clothe himself?

More so, why is it automatically a problem for so many people? There's nothing sexual about any scene in which that part of his body appears. It's not about exhibitionism either. Maybe it's just me — having been a cop, having a wife who's an ICU nurse, and having a family with many people in the medical field, I find it easy to understand that a penis, just like any other part of the body, is muscle, skin, blood vessels, capillaries, nerve endings, etc. It's all part of the machine. Sure, it's generally portrayed in a sexual manner, and that's something different. That doesn't happen here. Get over it.

Kid biting another kid's cheek
Yup, it's there. Just like in the comic. And it's about as brief, too. And quite obviously fake. Honestly, I had been expecting something much more brutal here.

Man's arms being sawed off in prison
Yup, just like in the book. Not so much blood spraying that you'd think it was a Tarantino film, but there was gratuitous blood. If you've read the book, this scene is 100% as you'd expect. Once again, nothing we haven't seen a billion times before.

Man burned with fryer oil
Yes, it happened. Yes, it was brutal. However, it was brutal because we're imagining what it would be like. Visually speaking, all we saw was a guy covered with an oily substance which was steaming, and we see him kneeling and screaming in pain (personally, I imagine I'd be writhing around instead, but whatever). Once again, it's not what we see that's a problem. It's how we imagine it must feel, and it's how brutal and extreme an attack it was by this person who considers himself a hero.

Many arms, hands, fingers, and legs broken
Yeah. Honestly, this was a bit intense, made even more so by the effective use of sound effects. There were many cringe-worthy scenes in Watchmen. Still, I'd say about 90% of it was the sound effects. And it wasn't nearly as violent as 300.

Cops being set on fire
Yeah, but in the same way as the "Stunt Man Show" at your local Six Flags Amusement Park, just in slow motion. That wasn't a very intense scene. I mean, it's 2009; how many times have we seen people on fire in movies? Come on.

The infamous rape scene
Okay, I'm going to split this up into two parts.

First, the scene before the rape. The Comedian beats Sally Jupiter around. I think there were probably about three or four (maybe five) strikes, spread out as individual attacks, each of which were full-force and quite violent. Call me old-fashioned in that it bothered me even more that he was beating a woman, but even aside from that, some of these were punches that would knock the average person out cold.

Second, there's the "rape." I put that in quotes because it never got anywhere. Technically, it didn't happen. Both were fully clothed (though Jupiter was in undergarments), and the Comedian never even got his pants undone. The scene was interrupted before it could go anywhere.

(Please, if I sound dismissive in that last paragraph, understand that I'm speaking merely as to the mechanics of the film. *ANY* type of sexual assault, even if only attempted and not completed, is a horrible violation and absolutely detestable.)

The movie concluding that "the rape was a good thing because the slutty superhero... (truncated to avoid spoilers)
Wow. Debbie, having sex with someone doesn't make you a slut. Laurie had sex with someone (Dr. Manhattan) with whom she was in a committed relationship. Then, in a new relationship, she had sex with someone else. I guess it all depends on how you define "slut." By your definition and based on statistics, I believe about 70% of the women in this country would be "sluts." Possibly more. Don't you think that maybe you're generalizing? Hmm? Just a little bit, perhaps?

Anyway, in all but two scenes in the film, the Comedian is portrayed as a monster. Even the "can't a guy talk to his friend's daughter" moment is much less sympathetic than in the book. The Comedian is not portrayed as a hero. He ranges from victim (initially) to bad guy to really bad guy to all but forgotten.

As for Jupiter's comment near the end of the film, that was meant to point out that, after decades had passed, she felt there was at least something good to come of a bad situation. That's often how life works, and it's often a healthy way to look at life. Horrible things happen all the time — some unspeakably horrible. But people can choose to move on and look at what else they've gotten out of life, or they can define themselves as forever a victim of that moment. Sure, Jupiter was a tease (which does not condone rape), and the book even leaves it open to the reader's interpretation that maybe she was a slut. But it's a bit much to say the movie is calling the rape good, just because something else good resulted from it.

I'd go further and point out how other real-life rape victims who have made similar comments would probably like to beat the bloody crap out of you right now, but that'd end up spoiling the movie, and you wouldn't get the point anyway.

Sorry... Enough of Debbie. Back to our normal audience...

Comedian and the Vietnamese woman
Yup, it happens just like in the book. Honestly, I was expecting the cut to be more graphic. Could have been worse. And this was a very necessary scene in the film, as it helped paint the Comedian as a morally bankrupt, pathetic excuse for a human being.

Comedian being thrown from the roof of a tall building
Actually, it was out of his apartment window. As many times as we've had to see the trailer and TV spots, I'm surprised Debbie got this wrong. Anyway, if you've seen the trailers, you've basically seen that moment.

Two characters having "an explicit sex scene in a spaceship"
Heh, spaceship. Cute.

Debbie points out that, "she's on top, then he's on top, awesome—you can teach your young kids multiple sexual positions before they even reach puberty..." Wow, that's a lot of variety there, isn't it? Her on top, them him on top. Let's see, that's... consulting my copy of the Kama Sutra here.... yup, that pretty much covers all the sexual positions. Pretty graphic, if you ask me.

Debbie, as much as I'd absolutely love to comment on your sexual ignorance right now (wonder where all my general anger is coming from? read her comments section, then her follow-up article), but I'll try to stay on topic.

This "explicit" sex scene is no more explicit than half of the sex scenes in film today ("NC-17" my ass). First, it's very brief. Second, as per MPAA requirements there's little (or no) thrusting. Third, while Laurie's breasts are visible, they're not for long. And yes, you see Dan's butt (ZOMG!).

Fourth — and in my opinion, this is the really disturbing part, which I think should make everyone question whether they go see this film — is that they're playing this horrible song during the sex scene. I mean, horrible. Had they been playing the theme from Super Mario Brothers, it may have improved the mood.

In Conclusion

Listen... This is a violent film. And it's not for kids (nor was it ever marketed as such). If you're bothered by violence, you should think twice about seeing this film.

That being said, this is no worse off than 300. I was confused by a few people asking me whether it was "really that bad," until I'd read the article that made them wonder.

I've been there. I've seen some things in my life I'd give anything to un-see. Once you see something, you can't ever undo seeing it, and the more graphic or shocking it is, the stronger the chance it'll get burned into long-term memory. So I get it. I understand the concerns brought up after reading Debbie's article.

However, Debbie is a short-sighted idiot who needs to stop watching films while carrying a checklist of supposed atrocities like it's a BINGO card.

Still, I am actually grateful that the parents who read her article were scared away from this film. This is absolutely not a film kids should see.

See Debbie? Good things can come from something horrible!