Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the movie for what it was as well. Jackie Earle Haley was an amazing Rorschach and while the other characters weren't as strong, they did fit into the roles. However, it was not as powerful as the comic version and Snyder did fall into his slow motion 'moment' vs 'scene' trap. If you compare what Jackson did with the Lord of the Rings, Jackson had to trim some of the source material but he stayed true to the 'feeling' of the books. If you were a diehard fan of the books, you might not care for his interpretation, but he did give you the majority of the work. Snyder didn't really do the source material justice and while some of that may lay with the script, it still is his fault to a point.

He is a very bombastic director if given a mostly action based movie to work with. As soon as you take him out of that comfort zone, he tries to apply the same formula and that can kill movies that require a defter hand to work all of the nuances.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video the watchmen-and then all that was left was rorschach. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

Seemed to work for Deadpool. Though the eyes were a completely different style than Spiderman.

Rorschach too, but that's a stretch...

Rorschach IS a Stone Cold G.

Crimecar2000®, now available with Rorschach Industries Kalidescopic License Plates

I thought the Watchmen movie was competent rather than inspired. In fact, I thought the most original clever part of the movie was the opening credits.

It wasn't bad, but there was just no way it could handle the sheer depth of the comic. To be fair, I haven't seen the ultimate cut though, but well... I went with a few friends who hadn't read the comic, and they came out wondering why I had made such a big deal of going to see it. Then I loaned them the comic and they understood....

I really think the only way the movie could have been truly great would be to get someone with their own vision and go at it from a different angle. Terry Gilliam would have been interesting. It probably would have failed, but it'd have failed gloriously.

BTW, have to share this..my signed Rorschach portrait by John Higgins

>> ^alien_concept:

I too found this movie mediocre, which was a shame, but he was amazing. He's even better in Little Children.


What do you have against giant blue cock!



Really, the only part I liked was the ending, and not the "heros", but rorschach's. Everyone else was content with murdering a city "for the greater good", rorschach was like, "fuck that noise, that makes you murderers". They be like "No G, we are STOPPING murdering dog", then Rorschach's little diary gets out and all the killing was for nothing...secrets out. Might as well be a story of wikileaks...except Rorschach's a crazy mother fucker. At least, that is how my brain remembers it, I might have added my own context.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

Given the fairly graphic violence in this clip, it's probably nsfw?


Tits at work= No
Moaning vocals= No
Gratuitous violence=okay

It is sex the workplace is worried with, not violence.

I don't think I would go as far as saying to steal is morally the best choice, but rationally the stronger choice. If 2 gods incapable of lying were on staged, and promised to share, that is the most moral position. Well actually, IMO, 2 people that CAN choose to lie deciding not to is more morally pretty, so 2 humans choosing share because they want to do the right thing is the best moral outcome, and also the hardest to achieve. And to that end, your suggesting that stealing becomes more moral starts to gain a little traction in real world human transactions, but it only works if you can get people to act in a certain way...so it is morally dependent on the actions of other people, which is not a good place for your morality. All it takes is a type person Rorschach, a moral high grounder whom wants to punish injustice to ruin the plan, as in the movie version of watchmen. The conflict of justice with fairness makes a TRUE solution imposible to have. This is one of the moral problems that lead me away from my faith, Justice and Goodness being incompatible in the way they cary themselves out. For instace, a person whom wants to not do the "right" thing (share) but make sure a person that does the wrong thing get screwed (push for stealing by stealing ensuring that both get nothing) is incompatible with the Goodness version where share is the only option. The conflict between "Love" and "Justice" meant, to me, that there is no way to be loyal to both at the same time, and anyone who says they are is a lier. Anyway, didn't want to drag the conversation here per say, but this was a key kind of conversation I had with myself in a very similar chain of events as to this gameshow...a showdown of ideas, ideals, and morals.

>> ^RedSky:

Lol, last time this show got posted I suggested the exact same idea.
>> ^RedSky:
Stealing is both rationally and morally the best choice because:
1 - If they steal, you would have been screwed picking the other option.
2 - If they share, you can always voluntarily give them half after, thereby forcing a share scenario.


>> ^RedSky:
@direpickle
I admit the idea does hinge on being able to convince the other fully of your actions, but if you can, then you'll effectively have changed their payoff to steal = nothing, share = possibility of something. If you can see you've evidently convinced them, you could even pull a fast one and instead choose to share thus saving you time and effort! I guess it's kind of contradictory to effectively act benevolent through authority but in a limited case like this, where you can reduce the uncertainty of an undesirable outcome considerably, I think it's fully worth it.

He got asploded. >> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Where is Rorschach when you need him?

Where is Rorschach when you need him?

>> ^Reefie:

Did he really refer to his hand as the "wife beater" or is my hearing really screwed?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wife%20beater

>> ^xxovercastxx:

I wonder if you could paint the whole face, wire the mask up with soft circuits and then connect to an arduino or something similar to run a programmed animation loop. I suppose you could make the animation random but still symmetrical pretty easily, actually. It's just a matter of whether the soft circuits themselves generate enough heat or if something will need to be added.


Well that thermochromic ink is pretty nifty (with the fabric/acrylic ink base). It's been around awhile--like "Mood Rings", but like @blankfist says, "It's Awesome!", due to the application an idea this guy used (now I've got to see if "Rorschach" in the movie uses anything like this or just flat-out uninspired CGI). Imagine using a wider or more controlled version of the thermochromic ink with something like meta-materials; that will come out soon enough (the neater stuff is military only here in the US I would assume). It was found recently that the meta-material molecules set themselves up automatically into Möbius symmetrical setups or "M.C. Escher" topology. If you combine the paint (if possible) afterward, I'll bet you'll be able to get some literally eye-popping effects. Maybe just not the type the military would want. Especially, if you can adhere the "ink finish / lacquer" to the inner portion of the (typically, meta-materials are aiming for "see-through" optics--which is why the topology and structure is very interesting) meta-material.

Really off-topic after this:

Using what @xxovercastxx said, adhering it (maybe with multiple type of thermochromic inks--giving it a far wider chromatic range, at varying temperatures) internally and using the meta-material you might be able to go from invisible to Abrams Tank to Porsche. You'd have to insulate the inner layer somehow to give you very fine control over the temperature or perhaps you could just flat out use electricity to change the colors. I'd imagine changing a thermochromic ink from reacting to temperature to electricity (or hell, anything kinetic: sonic waves, magnetism, etc...) wouldn't be very hard as they are closely related in the first place. You could essentially use light if the inks are responsive enough and it doesn't require a "non-stop" wave of photons; if you could make it behave like a switch that would be perfect. Then throw in some nano-technology with atomic manipulation and you'd have something incredible.

Hell, I wouldn't put something like that one the battlefield; it'd be a damned work of art! Plus, it'd probably cost more than a full-wing of F-22s just to develop; but the stuff that would come out of a development project like that would benefit humanity for a long time.

<sarcasm>Nah, let's just keep building more military.</sarcasm> At least, I know a lot of scientists try to use our addiction to the "military-industrial-complex" as a way to GET some key technological advances made. NASA does the same thing, but they tend to be better at it per dollar spent.

Möbius Symmetry link goes here.

PS: I like to include M.C. Escher (painter--think Inception as well as August Möbius (mathematician; and famous for his Möbius Strip topology of a a finite(?) two dimensional plane twisted at one end (pick a corner ) then connect it to the opposite side (make sure "top" meets "bottom"). Adding electronics I'm sure will be, if not already, worked on heavily. Especially, as I said in military type technologies (cloaking armor, etc...) But, with these you could--with enough precision make an Abrams Tank look like an Edsel. Although shooting it will kill that effect fairly quick (although I'm sure mitigation of visual anomalies will greatly depend on angle-of-view and distance) --

"Hey! That Edsel has four and one-half wheels! Ford is outrageous; why would we by this lemon!?!" His cousin responds right after;

"Bob! I got no idea whatever your sayin!?!" "It clearly has four wheels on my side!!!". "I thought Edsels were black?"

Another off-topic bit about "Edsel(s)":
Not the doo-wop group (although, the group is related to the real "Edsel"; they changed their name after the Edsel came out to capitalize on the name recognition from: "The Essos") that my dictionary keeps telling me it is; "Edsels <--with the "s" is misspelled according to the THREE combined English dictionaries. WTF? Typically I try to only misspell when I'm doing something as above in the first sentence by "Bob", "sayin" is part of my colloquialisms for them. I know, I tried hard for that "50's" feel... Yes, this is also so far off topic that I should just blog it. Can one of the admins throw a gadget in for us to use in our posts--like this, to count the topic changes. Perhaps a grammar-Nazi™ one!. Done!

P.S.- I didn't check for continuity logic or reading comprehension (and at this length, it's always needed--as it can sound like buck-shot mentally). Take as is. That reminds me: I should make a "colloquialism" English dictionary add-on for Firefox with auto conversion and "by decade" setups. It'd be fun (there's probably one around already ).

Merry Christmas everybody.
Also, the mask rocks! I also added one-helluva-edit after thinking about it; it seemed worth the trouble to bring up.
So hopefully you read it and didn't feel like I was wasting your time. Long posts are like that.

Your video, How To Make A Real Rorschach Mask That Changes Shape, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^blankfist:

Okay that is fucking cool!


Totally. I didn't think you could do that!