le nub, yes, and that's exactly what I was talking about upthread about the narrative structure being out of order and failing.

why did they put the picture of Laurie on the Comedian's nightstand? Just leaving that out or having her picture out of focus, or having Rorschach pick up the picture and set it down again without revealing the picture's image, would have at least put some mystery in all of it.

BTW - for individuals who read the book? Comedian tried to rape Laurie's mom, right? Then X years later, she willingly slept with the asshole? Why?

le nub:

The Comedian being Laurie's father is a *BIG* reveal in the comic that they totally punked in the movie. Having her picture there was one major fuckup...way to spoil it, Snyder.

It's really well done in the graphic novel. There are tiny tiny pieces sprinkled throughout that don't seem to point to anything in particular and don't even attract notice until Laurie pieces them together on Mars (without, might I add, Dr. Manhattan's horseshit "See as I see" crap which is not in the novel).

As to your second question:

Sally answers the question like this: "...shouted at him, he looked *surprised*, couldn't imagine why I'd bear a grudge. See, it's different for him, and I just couldn't sustain it, the anger..."

"First off, he was *there*, right? Plus, he was *gentle*. You know what gentleness *means* in a guy like that? Even a glimmer of it?"

Later, to Laurie:

"Oh, Laurel, I'm so sorry. Wh-what must you think? It...it was just an afternoon, in summer. He stopped by...

"I tried to be angry, but...I mean, I never wanted you to know. I should have told you, but...I don't know, I just felt ashamed, I felt stupid, and..."

So, to me it was a bad decision, one of those bad relationship moves that people make and they feel fucking stupid about afterward, but it happened and there you go. Sally Jupiter was never shown to be the most together person as it was. Her reasoning for dressing up and fighting crime, her apparently loveless marriage...I don't know, it rang true to me in that way that people doing fucked up things that don't make sense sometimes does.

The commentary on "Strictly Ballroom" is really good, but Baz thinks far too highly of himself and wears a listener out with all of his talking.

Wallybee and I have just started watching through the Red Curtain trilogy. (I've seen them before, Wallybee hasn't.) Will have to check the commentary.

One thing I really liked, and mayhaps is the same thing that others have mentioned liking, was when Archie pulls up at the last moment and crashes into the top edge of the cliffs and suddenly the perspective is upside-down.

Now that was innovative and fresh, exciting, original, and a bit foreshadowing of things to come.

I have never heard it called the "Red Curtain Trilogy."

Strictly Ballroom is my absolute favorite.

I caught Beetlejuice over the weekend too, though I sadly missed the Day-O dinner party.

I'd forgotten how scorchingly hot Alec Baldwin was back at the start of his career.

Saw Watchmen. I think the movie greatly suffers by being made released 2009, although the CGI of today definitely helped it. But we're in a post XMen 3 world, a post Ang Lee's Hulk world. The superhero sensibility just isn't what it was when the comic came out, and I think that if Snyder were film-capable of what Moore & Gibbons accomplished in comics, well, he wouldn't be just Zack Snyder, would he?

Does that make sense? I think that in a post Watchmen world, rereading Watchmen holds up well because it's that good, even though the ground can't be unbroken again. Zack Snyder is not the man to break that ground with the superhero movie genre.

I'm sure being post X3 with a six foot + Wolverine is why we had so much ninja skills in Watchmen--why put on a silly suit if you're not physically capable far and beyond normal people?

I have never heard it called the "Red Curtain Trilogy."

I bought the films as a boxed set by that name. Not sure if it's marketed thus in America.

it is.