Watchmen
Fucking EPIC movie. Just plain awesome. IMO everyone should see it.
Dr. Manhattan: ILI-Ni 5w4 sx/sp
Silk Spectre II - SEE-Fi 7w6 sx/so
Silk Spectre I - EIE-Fe 3w2 so/sx
The Comedian - SLE-Se cp 6w7 so/sp
Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias - EIE-Ni 3w4 sp/so
Rorschach - ESI-Se cp 6w5 sp/sx
Nite Owl II - LIE-Te phobic 6w5 sp/sx
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
just from the commercials, i feel like it'll be a very Ni-Se quadra movie.
EII; E6(w5)
i am flakey
Yeah from what I heard it sucks. Sounds like tarintino hyped up.
your gore and omg how crazy is that ni/se shit.
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
I haven't seen it either, but after watching the trailer just now, I doubt it.Originally Posted by glamourama
maybe a saint is just a dead prick with a good publicist
maybe tommorow's statues are insecure without their foes
go ask the frog what the scorpion knows
lol. i was thinking that also, actually. seemed like one of those dark gamma movies.
EII; E6(w5)
i am flakey
Dr. Manhattan: LII
Silk Spectre II: ?
The Comedian: SLE
Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias: LIE
Rorschach: ESI
Nite Owl II: LSE
Alan Moore: ILI
So yes, the movie serves partially as a Gamma's critique of the extremes of Gamma quadra.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Bolded I agree with, green I can see but aren't solid on. Also, I'm commenting just on type, not subs or enneagramz.
I think Manhattan does come across as an Fe blackhole. Granted, he's hardly frigging human in terms of his perception but to me his character was pretty solidly and exclusively Ni and Te imo. Rorschach was interesting to me and Se-cre was what jumped out most. Nite Owl II I think makes sense as an EJ-Te. I'd lean more to LSE.
It had some fine points, but there was a good deal I couldn't really get into either. At first I didn't like Rorshach but by the end he was probably my favorite character of the film. Manhattan was a complete enigma to me, like seriously. I've also heard the ending was different than in the graphic novels, which I think would be interesting to hear about.
Whoever you heard that from has crappy taste in movies. The plot is intriguing and highly un-formulaic while still maintaining archetypal appeal, the characters are portrayed and developed masterfully, all sex and most of the violence is done rather tastefully (much of it with a dash of humor), and according to the comic book fans that I know, the reproduction was very true to the story except a few points that were switched to make it relevant to modern times. One of the best movies I've seen in a while.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
No way man, ILI to the core.
I thought she was obviously SEE; the only other type I could see would be IEE.Silk Spectre II: ?
Duh.The Comedian: SLE
I favor EIE simply based on the presentation of the character, but I can see where LIE comes from and I am pretty much on the border between E3 and E8 for him, so either works.Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias: LIE
Check. Classic E6.Rorschach: ESI
I think he is a pretty classic LIE, but I can see where LSE would come from.Nite Owl II: LSE
That's a good analysis.So yes, the movie serves partially as a Gamma's critique of the extremes of Gamma quadra.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
No, LII. He is all about his Ti + Ne.
Silk Spectre II (to Dan Dreiberg): "It's just that the only reason I'm kept around is to keep Jon relaxed and happy." Si + Fe seeking.
Janet Slater: "I remember soon after he failed to prevent J.F.K.'s assassination, we argued. I said, 'Jon, you know how every damn thing in this world fits together except people!"' Strong Ti, weak Fi.
Dr. Manhattan actually looked up to the Comedian (SLE) and thought that he was really just about the only one to 'get it' in regards to the violence Vietnam. The Comedian supervises Dr. Manhattan.
Read the graphic novel; LIE.I favor EIE simply based on the presentation of the character, but I can see where LIE comes from and I am pretty much on the border between E3 and E8 for him, so either works.
Your pretty classic LIE is actually a pretty classic LSE. He and his predecessor (Hollis Mason) fill the LSE "everyman" role.I think he is a pretty classic LIE, but I can see where LSE would come from.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
This is fair.
Ok, weak Fi yes, strong Ti yes, but not necessarily unvalued Fi or valued Ti. Also I think the whole model of the character is pretty much Ni-based: always in his head, disconnected from reality, obsessed with looking into the future and seeing how things will come together, interact, and affect each other.Janet Slater: "I remember soon after he failed to prevent J.F.K.'s assassination, we argued. I said, 'Jon, you know how every damn thing in this world fits together except people!"' Strong Ti, weak Fi.
Are those really the kinds of things that happen between Supervisor-Supervisee? Wouldn't Jon be more likely to "look up to" his semi dual rather than his supervisor, and doesn't the emphasis on "looking up to" someone who is at best an equal sound like a Victim-ish attitude? Would a supervisee really think that his supervisor is the only one who "gets it?" Wouldn't an LII rather see SLEs as brash and thoughtless but feel victimized (in the English sense of the world) by them, rather than look up to them and think that that they "really get it?"Dr. Manhattan actually looked up to the Comedian (SLE) and thought that he was really just about the only one to 'get it' in regards to the violence Vietnam.
Well I'm going by the movie, not the graphic novel, seeing as it's all I have to go on. Maybe you could make a better estimation of the amalgam of the two, but from what I can see in the movie, he seems very image-focused, and if we take Dr. Manhattan to be ILI, Veidt's manipulation of him by use of the psych profile is what I would call typical of EIE>ILI supervision. He also seems very adept in terms of verbal gymnastics and deception, which is more typical of EIEs than LIEs. And the whole idea of having this grand plan to affect mass change on the attitudes of the people of the world is much more of an EIE "quest," IMO.Read the graphic novel; LIE.
I don't know where your idea of LSEs being the "everyman" comes from, but personally I think Nite Owl II seems almost squeemish and lacking in initiative for an LSE; he gives in to Silk Spectre II's whims and lets her initiate everything, rather than making any moves of his own, even when her intentions were completely apparent. Also he just seems too...wussy to have Se as an 8th function.Your pretty classic LIE is actually a pretty classic LSE. He and his predecessor (Hollis Mason) fill the LSE "everyman" role.
Last edited by Gilly; 03-08-2009 at 12:21 AM.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
I beg to differ.
I agree that the plot is intriguing, and the fighting/sex was done well. However, that movie was still asscakes. To say the characters were portrayed/developed masterfully is a HUUUUUUUUUGE overstatement. IMHO it was one of the movies MAJOR flaws. They didnt do a good job of fleshing out the characters, or story, crammed waayyy too much into a single movie. It has 'spider-man 3' syndrome. Couldnt say I really gave a fuck about anyone except Rorschach. Other then a few characters, the acting was sub-par. It was almost 3 hours, it dragged on way too much. For being advertised as this 'epic' thing, it was somewhat of a letdown. OK movie overall.
Im pretty sure the novel was awesome tho.
<Crispy> what subt doesnt understand is that a healthy reaction to "FUCK YOU" is
Asscakes? Wow, far from.
I know that they definitely tried to cram a lot into one movie, and I would love to see it as 2 or even 3 movies, but all things considered I thought they did what they did extremely well. And yeah, the acting could have been better, but it really wasn't bad; certainly not bad enough to take away from the movie, IMO.
Oh well, different strokes.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
She is definitely Ethical, IMO. ESE would make more sense than LSE, but I think SEE makes more sense, personally.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Oh I really loved nightowl though
I saw this last night and adored it.
Hello, my name is Bee. Pleased to meet you .
I think Ozymandias came across more EIE in the movie because I think the actor, Matthew Goode, is some type of EJ-Fe, if not EIE, himself.
(
)
3w4-1w2-5w4 sx/sp
I claim them for Alpha.
Hello, my name is Bee. Pleased to meet you .
Well I have other reasons for thinking EIE too, which I listed above...but LIE is reasonable.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
I agree with this.
Ceci n'est pas une eii.
whos the crazy blue guy?
The end is nigh
Badass Smurf
Dr. Manhattan
Ceci n'est pas une eii.
HAHAHAHA! Dude, you've GOT to stop making me laugh out loud at work! (nah, I don't mind ... I'm hiding behind my credenza)
I LOVED this movie. Not gonna do any typings. But I loved the graphic novel, and this was just so fucking close to it that I dug it immensely. I could understand the changes that were made.
I really can't separate my feelings for the novel from the movie. So for all of you who are taking in one without the other: eh, results may vary? And for all of you who read comics and have seen the crap hollywood puts out: do not be afraid of this movie!
I was impressed at how they kept even the slower parts of the book in the movie; I really liked how they chose actors who looked like the characters were drawn in the book; they maaaaaybe could have spent a little less time on the sex scene but props are due to them not shying away from the non-sex-related nudity that came from the book; I was amused to note that they removed all references to smoking!
.... oh, OK, I will admit the Comedian seemed ultra-fucking-SLE. Maybe he was really a super-unhealthy compensating IEI?
SLI
well why I asked is because Dr. Manhattan reminded me of metal images I've had of how Ti Ne Si Fe feels.
So without having read the novel or seen the movie I think he seems kinda LII ish
The end is nigh
Dr. Manhattan's mental images remind me of Ne. But what he does with those mental images, you could say, is Ti rather than Fi. So, I agree with LII.
Ceci n'est pas une eii.
Booerns...saw the movie..it was too long, and the story line sucked balls. It's like almost nothing really happend. And, what's with Nixon getting elected for like 5 terms...WTF. It's was a waste of time...and money. Good effects, but ...no.
Yesterday I knew nothing, today I know that.
I loved it. I can understand Deltas not liking it, and some if not all Alphas probably not liking it. I fundamentally see Se/Ni-driven plot and characters.
I generally agree with the socionics types. However, I considered ESI for Silk Spectre II and IEI for Silk Spectre (seems like we're thinking along similar lines her). I also though that Nite Owl II could've been an LSE. While I did look at ESI as a possibility for Rorschach, I thought he could've been LSI (either way, he's clearly IJ temperament, and far more likely Se than Ne creative). I'm interested to know what made you choose ESI over LSI though.
As for Enneagram, I have a problem with the Comedian as a cp6w7. I think he is a clear 8w7. Also, while I don't have much trouble with Rorschach as a cp6w5, I think 8w9 is a possibility. The rest I'm basically fine with.
One other thing. I'm curious as to what you guys make of pre-blue-fucked-up-Manhattan relations with that woman in whom he allegedly caused cancer. I thought he was almost a different character entirely from his real-time self.
Actually, the scary thing is that he really wasn't that much different in terms of his personality. The only real difference is the effect of his powers on his attachment to humanity. Jon Osterman, much like Dr. Manhattan reaches his arm out in vain to stop the Comedian from killing a woman, reaches out in vain to stop his father from throwing out the broken watch from the window. Janet Slater gets mad at him not so much because of personality changes, but due to expectations of his power as well as his chasing of "jail bait" + Janet's aging and Dr. Manhattan's non-aging. But an LII through and through.
It is explained in the graphic novel. Due to Nixon using Dr. Manhattan to quickly and decisively end the Vietnam War, Nixon's popularity increased greatly while the Comedian was also responsible for apparently assassinating Woodward and Bernstein (so no Watergate scandal), so Nixon was able to reappeal the amendment that placed term limits. Also, while it is mostly forgotten nowadays, there was a real fear back around the time of Nixon that he would not step down. Supposedly, a number of congressmen actually went to the military in secret in order to secure their backing in case Nixon tried a coup.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
This is very interesting, thanks for explaining because that confused me a lot in the movie (because I obviously haven't read the novel).
I thought that the movie started out really good and I loved how it was filmed. They definitely dragged it out way too long though, and by the end I was kind of anxious for it to end, which is never a good feeling to get from a movie. I think they should have clipped a lot of stuff near the end.
I agree that Dr. Manhattan was LII>ILI. Silk Spectre II seemed ethical and irrational to me and Rorschach was my favorite character in the movie because he was the least annoying. I like how committed he was to his own goal(s) even when no one agreed with him or he was facing death - commendable.
Climb the mountains and get their good tidings. Nature's peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will blow their own freshness into you, and the storms their energy, while cares will drop off like autumn leaves.
John Muir
Silk Spectre II gave me an alpha SF vibe tbh.
Hello, my name is Bee. Pleased to meet you .
Didn't she seem like an aggressor, though?
Climb the mountains and get their good tidings. Nature's peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will blow their own freshness into you, and the storms their energy, while cares will drop off like autumn leaves.
John Muir
Yeah, I ordered the novel last night so as to give me a good comparison between it and the film.
I didn't think he reacted to Fe well enough to be an LII. Why not ILI as Gilly and I have said?
Agressor? Hmm nah. She sounded like a frustrated me.
Hello, my name is Bee. Pleased to meet you .
Then let me turn the questions on you then. Why ILI? Where is his leading-? Where are his Gamma values? Where is his
-seeking? Where is his
-seeking? Where is the
-role function? Where is the
vs.
- Janet Slater: "I remember soon after he failed to prevent J.F.K.'s assassination, we argued. I said, 'Jon, you know how every damn thing in this world fits together except people!"' This is clearly dealing primarily with the fields of external objects (i.e. Ti).
vs.
- Jon on fighting-crime (picture of him exploding someone's head): "The morality of my activity escapes me."
- Jon decides to fix Janet Slater's watch. Jon buys her earrings that look like Dr. Manhattan's symbol. (Wikisocion: "Alphas show affection for others in the form of small practical services or gifts.")
- Jon reflects on Vietnam: "[The Comedian] suits the climate here: the madness, the pointless butchery, as I come to understand Vietnam and what it implies about the human condition, I also realize that few humans will permit themselves such an understanding. Blake's different. He understands perfectly and he doesn't care." This is what I mean by Jon looking up to Eddie. Jon is simultaneously criticizing the Se that is in play, but he is acknowledges that Eddie is one of the few who does "get it". The language here of "the human condition" is also one of Ti > Te.
- Eddie kills a pregnant woman against Jon's wishes, and here is Eddie's response back: "You watched me. You coulda changed the gun into steam or the bullets into mercury or the bottle into snowflakes! You coulda teleported either of us to goddamn Australia...but you didn't lift a finger!" This points to not only weak-Se, but also a Se-PoLR.
- Jon Osterman talking to Janet Slater about being a research scientist: "Well, you know...my dad sort of pushed me into it. That happens to me a lot. Other people seem to make all my moves for me." Weak-Se. Janet's response: "Can I get you a drink?" Arguable caregiver behavior, to which Jon does respond favorably.
To cut the previously mentioned bit with Laurie (SS2) when talking about her relationship with Jon: "I'm kept around is to keep Jon relaxed." Si. When Jon is walking around Mars, he is focusing on the beauty of his surroundings and being in that moment. Si. In fact, Jon is even "playing" or sifting pink Martian sand in his hands. He takes conscious time to look at the stars and a meteor shower. These are Si-pursuits.
- "[Janet Slater] buys me a beer, the first time a woman has ever done this for me. As she passes me the cold, perspiring glass, our fingers touch." Yep, he is loving the Si.
Other characteristics, should we decide to use the Reinen dichotomies:
- Infantile > Victim personal and erotic behavior
- Asker > Declarer
- Static > Dynamic
Unfortunately, I have to go attend to something, so I am afraid I have to cut this short for now, but I will write more on this later.
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Saw the movie last night and enjoyed it a lot more than I thought I would
Dr. Manhattan: Hard to type since he is basically god, but I think LII is best.
Silk Spectre II - SEI
Silk Spectre I - EIE
The Comedian - SLE
Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias - ILE
Rorschach - LSI
Nite Owl II - EII
ILE-Ti
6w7 sx/sp (low level of confidence)
Agreed on all of the above, apart from Nite Owl, Who strikes me as T>F
Hello, my name is Bee. Pleased to meet you .
I'm now more inclined to agree that he is probably EII. Rorschach, however, I still think is ESI, but one with an incredibly rigid and personal
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
I thought LII at first as well but he does seem very ethical towards the end.
ILE-Ti
6w7 sx/sp (low level of confidence)
Alright, I have reviewed my understand of these characters and I think I can now consent to a few re-typings:
Manhattan: LII
SS2: SEI
NO2: EII
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Dirty flipflopperer!
They could have followed in the footsteps of good men like my father, or President Truman. Decent men, who believed in a day's work for a day's pay. Instead they followed the droppings of lechers and communists and didn't realize that the trail led over a precipice until it was too late. Don't tell me they didn't have a choice. Now the whole world stands on the brink, staring down into bloody hell, all those liberals and intellectuals and smooth-talkers, and all of a sudden nobody can think of anything to say.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
