Steven Greydanus offers an insightful interpretation of the Twilight phenomenon. Now that’s what I’m talking about!
Roger Ebert: Death to Film Critics! Hail to the CelebCult!
The song in this Watchmen trailer is “Take a Bow” by Muse off the Black Holes and Revelations Soundtrack.
peter: if i’m not mistaken, both “the beginning is the end is the beginning” and “the end is the beginning is the end” were on the batman and robin soundtrack. i think they bookended the soundtrack with “the end is the beginning is the end” as the first track and “the beginning is the end is the beginning” as the last. i don’t think they were ever released on a pumpkins album except for the cd single for “the end is the beginning is the end”.
FWIW, I believe the song in question — the one that appeared in the earlier trailer — is not the version of that song that appeared on the B&R soundtrack, but the slower version that appeared on the Smashing Pumpkins album that came out at the same time. One version was called ‘The Beginning Is the End Is the Beginning’, and the other was called ‘The End Is the Beginning Is the End’, but I can’t remember which was which.
As for the new trailer, I discovered the Koyaanisqatsi soundtrack right around the same time that I began collecting comics in earnest (in the late ’80s), so I have long, long associated Watchmen and other graphic novels of that era with this music. ‘Twas very cool to see the two things matched like this in the new Watchmen trailer.
thivai: surely you mean the smashing pumpkins, not radiohead. unless we’re talking about different trailers, it’s “the beginning is the end is the beginning” off of the batman and robin soundtrack.
The Watchmen trailer made me cringe, it looks like they have taken one of the rare examples of literate comic-work that sought to deconstruct the iconic imagery of the super hero and turned it into a poorly written (the dialogue was painful) film that will depend on the iconic super hero imagery (300 anyone?) to carry the film.
I hope not… but I’m not optimistic… the earlier trailer with the radiohead soundtrack and minus the stilted dialogue worked much better (power of iconic images and rocking music bringing us to a fascist crescendo of idolatry)
On another note, …
[EDITOR’S NOTE: Thivai’s comment on abortion, which included a blanket-statement condemnation of Catholics — “Catholics have never had a problem with imposing their beliefs/morals/worldviews on other peoples, so they should get used to the idea that the world is changing” — has been deleted. As I indicated earlier, if you want to pursue this conversation, please go to the link provided at artsandfaith.com. I don’t have time to moderate a frenzy of mudslinging and prejudice, and I’m not likely to let any comments go that include expressions of contempt against others.]
Thank you for your response. Just one more point and I will travel over to the site you’ve provided.
I’ve read FOCA and I do not think it means what Melinda Henneberger thinks it means (to paraphrase Inigo Montoya). Here is the 2007 bill introduced in the Senate:
And, as you can see, you are free to proselytize others to try and change others’ opinions as well. I won’t get in your way.
But it is my hope that since the state can make murder illegal, the nation will come around to seeing that the most vulnerable human beings should be included in that protection. I believe that science will catch up with those of us who have no doubt that an unborn infant is a human being… an especially vulnerable human being who deserves protection.
I invite you to join in the discussion at artsandfaith.com, where there are folks of very different perspectives having a good civil discussion. So let’s continue to explore this at the link I provided above…
I’d like to see any substantive proof that you have found that the new administration plans to force Catholics or Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. It’s very easy to conflate the issue beyond the boundaries that I tried to set upon it in my initial post.
Let me be clear: I do not think it is the state’s business to force anyone to have an abortion. I also think that it is not the state’s business to prohibit abortions, particularly in the first trimester. Individuals who oppose abortion on personal/religious grounds are free to proselytize to try to change others’ opinions on this matter, but they cannot, through the instrumentalities of the state, force those who support legal abortion, to conform to their personal/religious beliefs.
I suppose the only “meeting ground” possible between the pro-life and pro-choice camps will be found when everybody chooses life. But since that isn’t likely to happen…
Well, Moe99, it concerns me too when a “single issue becomes the prism through which all the rest of the universe is judged.”
That’s certainly not the way I look at things.
I can’t really tell from your comment, but if your criticism was directed at me, let may say I chose to comment on a particular issue, but in the history of this blog, I’ve addressed and explored countless issues and perspectives. If you’d like, I’ll provide you with some links to the election discussions that explored a wide variety of subjects.
Abortion is an important subject. So are many other subjects.
Who are you accusing of “imposing their belief system”? The Catholics who refuse to carry out abortions? Or the President who looks likely to tell Catholics that they *must* respect a mother’s “right” to end the life of her unborn child?
Don’t Catholics have “the right to choose” whether or not to carry out abortions as well? Shouldn’t they be free to develop endeavors, like hospitals, that manifest their beliefs?
And on the matter of abortion, I happen to believe that it is murder to kill an unborn child (except in extremely exceptional circumstances), just as I believe it is murder for someone to walk into my house and kill an adult member of my family. I choose not to kill members of my family. Am I “imposing my belief system” on someone else if I strive to prevent someone else from killing a member of my family? Should I allow the intruder to have “the right to choose” to murder my family member? Should policemen give gun-owners the “right to choose” whose life they want to eliminate?
So you see, it’s not so simple as just respecting everybody’s right to choose. It’s a lot more complicated than that.
If there is a single “prism” through which I try to see the world, and through which I *wish* others would try to see the world, that single prism is love. I want to show love to the pregnant mother and show love the human being growing inside her womb… a human being incapable of having any input on the matter.
I hope nobody would object to me being a “single issue” voter if *love* is the single issue.
And by the way, I haven’t publicly declared how I voted on Election Day, and I think a great deal of trouble will be prevented if nobody presumes to guess which way I voted. As it turned out, I had a lot of issues on my mind when I sat down and filled out my ballot.
Thank you for your comment.
As an individual who supports a woman’s right to choose, yet chose not to abort when pregnant myself, I wonder if there ever will be a meeting ground or where one side does not try to impose their belief system on the other (this really only goes one way, doesn’t it?). It concerns me when a single issue becomes the prism through which all the rest of the universe is judged.
i was also very concerned about the foca during the election, primarily because it lacked a conscience clause which seemed like it would have had a pretty disastrous effect on the catholic health care system. but actually i saw a story over at catholic news recently that suggested that it’s extremely unlikely that it would ever pass (you can read the story here). now i’m wondering if obama’s support of the bill was a bit oversold.