Who watches the Watchmen?

[Jad]

entertheninja!, what's up with that photo of two people in La Jolla, CA? Is one of them you? Just curious, but I can't figure out how it's relevant to Watchmen.

[IndieMate]

http://www.bigbadtoystore.com/bbts/product...amp;mode=retail

I NEED THAT!

[Bob Harris]

I was in a hurry yesterday, but wanted to ask that question. Now I see, that there is a little fanboy debate, so it was worth writing.

So here's for more black bars:

The point is that being the fans that we are, we'll all be debating that issue until the cows come home. I used quotation marks for the sake of

all the comic book newbies out there who'll learn Watchmen's ending, oversimplify things and conclude that Ozymandias is a villain. Bully them.

First of all, I do really hope, that Snyder will adapt the ending as it is.

I do fear a little the movie ending will curry favor with the newbie-viewers and just oversimpilfy the conclusion. That would mean to destroy the whole story, but I see this being possible.

I for one subscribe to the notion that Ozymandias isn't 100% bad guy, but is really a guy with meaningful intentions but a totally fucked-up manner of acting on them. When you really look at things black and white, he did a "wrong thing" for a "right reason", but the simple-minded people who can't look past the giant squid will stick to the belief that Ozymandias is the "villain" of Watchmen.

I second that he isn't a completely bad guy. But here is when it gets interesting. I don't think that Veidt's position is problematic just for his plan being not 100% waterproof. The interesting question in my eyes is: Do any ends are able to justify any means? If you accept this, you also accept, that there is a "right" everybody's able to rely on. Intersubjective. Intercultural. That's exactly what some ancient greek thinkers believed in. And Alexander the great and the original Ozzymandias, as Veidt mentions. But it is also the same aspect the Nazis did believe in. (No offence to anybody who thinks the same way! Please, I don't want to argue here and in NO WAY want to call anybody a Nazi, don't get me wrong here, it's just a thought.) If we do say so, we have to think about who is able to decide what is right and how to reach it, and what qualifications this single person - or a group - has to fulfill. Ozzy is in a very prominent situation, being the smartest man alive. But is logical reasoning an appropriate way to decide? What if you don't agree with it and say any human being - any being at all - must not be regarded as means to any end? We'd open up a bottomless pit in that way. In that perspective, Veidt might be the character who fits the term "villain" best. But in a very abstract way, not just simplified black and white. That color scheme as an ethical concept is the way Rorschach sees things. For that, he might be a villain in a very similar way, too. And even similar to Veidt himself, because Rorschach as well - in a minor way - thinks he knows what's right and wrong and that justifys his obscure means - i.e. hurting and even killing "criminals". Anyway, I do really like both characters even when I don't see the world through the same glasses. But these problems I think are what makes Watchmen so very exciting!

Now here's a more interesting question:

Did Dr. Manhattan do the right thing when he killed Rorschach?

Yes he did, in the way he might see Ozzy's plan already executed with thousands of people died. If Rorschach ever gets to reveal the whole concept, those people would have died for absolutely nothing. It's the same reason the Comedian had to die. BUT: What would Manhattan has done, if Ozzy hadn't already executed his plan?

[karamazov80]

I hate to say it, but this thread is a black mark on this forum.

[NorthRaider]

I hate to say it, but this thread is a black mark on this forum.

I'd post my reply to Bob's post, but I think I just incurred an epic fail in editing the BB code for it. Not to mention that literal black wall of text we're all seeing now. I'll post my own elaborate (hopefully correctly coded) reply later.

[NorthRaider]

I'm back with own own wall of text! God help us all.

I guess it goes without saying that the

explosion that hit New York

was a major catalyst for any and all moral judgments that were made by the end of Watchmen.

Dr. Manhattan killing Rorschach

still struck me as being an incredibly rash decision from the moment I read it, but then again this could just be me not thinking clearly due to a personally excessive emotional attachment to the character. (You know who I'm talking about.)

The beauty of Watchmen's complexity is that it makes imagining alternative outcomes to the story just as challenging to the reader as simply reading the series. I for one am constantly contemplating that hypothetical situation wherein

Rorschach doesn't die, because oddly whenever I hear anybody say he

had to die at the end I always take that as a sort of challenge. One part of this scenario that never leaves my mind is that even if Rorschach survived and then tried to reveal the truth to anybody, with him being who he is who will possibly believe him? Your concern over Ozymandias' act being undermined by Rorschach's revelation sorta remains nullified by the persisting fact of Rorschach's "bad" reputation in the establishment.

Did Dr. Manhattan do the right thing when he killed Rorschach?

Yes he did, in the way he might see Ozzy's plan already executed with thousands of people died. If Rorschach ever gets to reveal the whole concept, those people would have died for absolutely nothing. It's the same reason the Comedian had to die. BUT: What would Manhattan has done, if Ozzy hadn't already executed his plan?

You know what? Reading this now, it has finally occured to me how truthfully annoyed I was all this time by the constant use of

Dr. Manhattan's non-linear view of time as a plot device

. I do love the moral implications though, especially the delicious irony in the fact that

despite having god-like powers Dr. Manhattan still harbors this incorrigibly defeatist attitude toward the future, since he's constantly claiming that he can't change something he already saw happen.

First of all, I do really hope, that Snyder will adapt the ending as it is.

I do fear a little the movie ending will curry favor with the newbie-viewers and just oversimpilfy the conclusion. That would mean to destroy the whole story, but I see this being possible.

By now though we already know Snyder's changed the ending. It has already become pretty apparent from the trailers and interviews that Snyder had already eschewed

the original ending with the explosion caused by the fake alien

in exchange for one where

Dr. Manhattan possibly gets framed for the explosion

. This is something that will possibly make my blood boil depending on how the new ending is executed in relation to the original themes of the story, but for now I'm reserving judgment on this new ending for after I see the film.

In that perspective, Veidt might be the character who fits the term "villain" best. But in a very abstract way, not just simplified black and white. That color scheme as an ethical concept is the way Rorschach sees things. For that, he might be a villain in a very similar way, too. And even similar to Veidt himself, because Rorschach as well - in a minor way - thinks he knows what's right and wrong and that justifys his obscure means - i.e. hurting and even killing "criminals". Anyway, I do really like both characters even when I don't see the world through the same glasses.

I LOVE this observation of yours! I feel I should be giving you a gold medal for it. This is basically saying in a nutshell that

even with regard to a question as "simple" as "Who was the bad guy?" Watchmen is a very polarizing book. The conflicting perspectives on Ozymandias/Rorschach being the narrative's primary "antagonist" strikes me as very similar to all those messed-up Republican/Democrat debates... which just goes to show how Watchmen works as an effective allegory even in modern times

. (Yikes, I think this is how I talk in school! )

I don't think that Veidt's position is problematic just for his plan being not 100% waterproof. The interesting question in my eyes is: Do any ends are able to justify any means? If you accept this, you also accept, that there is a "right" everybody's able to rely on

.

...

If we do say so, we have to think about who is able to decide what is right and how to reach it, and what qualifications this single person - or a group - has to fulfill. Ozzy is in a very prominent situation, being the smartest man alive. But is logical reasoning an appropriate way to decide? What if you don't agree with it and say any human being - any being at all - must not be regarded as means to any end? We'd open up a bottomless pit in that way.

Just to be clear, this is a question on

the accountability of Ozymandias and the other heroes (except Rorschach) with regard to the whole New York incident

, right? I find this interesting since this observation seems to have a cyclical quality to it: the very fact that

people like Ozymandias are even capable of doing something like blowing up New York sort of spurns the masses' overall mistrust of costumed heroes in the first place. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the very reason the Keene Act was even put into effect was precisely because people hoped to avoid such future "power-tripping" by masks. I guess the whole logic of this just got real fuzzy thanks to all that nuke paranoia that sidetracked it

.

But these problems I think are what makes Watchmen so very exciting!

You said it.

[entertheninja!]

entertheninja!, what's up with that photo of two people in La Jolla, CA? Is one of them you? Just curious, but I can't figure out how it's relevant to Watchmen.

Oh my god...how did you know that was in La Jolla, CA?Nice inquiring skills Jad.and i did to distract you all from that fact that i....AM TAKING OVER THE WORLD(and canada)....NONE OF YOU CAN STOP ME FROM TAKING OVER THE WORLD(and canada)...or i just did to see what the reaction would be and yes that was like a couple of months ago with my momma...so touching...

North Raider, what you said about

Dr.Manhattan possibly being framed for the explosion in New York makes sense because at a scene in, i think the newer trailer where silk spectre says that "jon thinks their is going to be nuclear war"you see a large blue explosion emitting from times square...here is what i think:1)either they keep some sort of alien and this time jon blows it up thus causing the exlosion...2)or jon gets framed for the psionic blast caused by whatever entity Zach Synder decides to come up with...whew oh and by the way was this a wall of text?lol

Edited February 17, 2009 by entertheninja!

[IndieMate]

Wow, there are a lot of black lines in this thread! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!

[NorthRaider]

whew oh and by the way was this a wall of text?lol

Not as big a wall of text as what Bob and I just put up.

North Raider, what you said about

Dr.Manhattan possibly being framed for the explosion in New York makes sense because at a scene in, i think the newer trailer where silk spectre says that "jon thinks their is going to be nuclear war"you see a large blue explosion emitting from times square...here is what i think:1)either they keep some sort of alien and this time jon blows it up thus causing the exlosion...2)or jon gets framed for the psionic blast caused by whatever entity Zach Synder decides to come up with...

I really like your first idea about how the ending might turn out (since it poses even MORE of a gray-area morality question), but I have that sinking feeling Snyder's most likely gonna go with number 2. Plus I think it's already been confirmed

there will be no alien and/or island full of artists at all in the movie

.

[entertheninja!]

whew oh and by the way was this a wall of text?lol

Not as big a wall of text as what Bob and I just put up.

North Raider, what you said about

Dr.Manhattan possibly being framed for the explosion in New York makes sense because at a scene in, i think the newer trailer where silk spectre says that "jon thinks their is going to be nuclear war"you see a large blue explosion emitting from times square...here is what i think:1)either they keep some sort of alien and this time jon blows it up thus causing the exlosion...2)or jon gets framed for the psionic blast caused by whatever entity Zach Synder decides to come up with...

I really like your first idea about how the ending might turn out (since it poses even MORE of a gray-area morality question), but I have that sinking feeling Snyder's most likely gonna go with number 2. Plus I think it's already been confirmed

there will be no alien and/or island full of artists at all in the movie

.

Can't you let a boy dream Mr. NorthRaider?but seriously it makes more sense the way alan moore wrote it but on the bad side the first comers might like have a bitch fit and walk out of the theater when they see a giant vajayjay-like alien in new york...another thing too audiences might take wrongly is new york getting f'd up cause all that post 9/11 trauma you know?america is hella sensitive to that stuff...and what do you think happened to jon after the talk with veidt?he just left...that is the only part i don't understand in the whole book...no spoiler needed in this past post too busy thinking...lol

[Punisher]

Picked up the Rorschach action figure at Blockbuster for 10 bucks today.

Can't wait for the movie!!!!!

[NorthRaider]

Can't you let a boy dream Mr. NorthRaider?but seriously it makes more sense the way alan moore wrote it but on the bad side the first comers might like have a bitch fit and walk out of the theater when they see a giant vajayjay-like alien in new york...another thing too audiences might take wrongly is new york getting f'd up cause all that post 9/11 trauma you know?america is hella sensitive to that stuff...and what do you think happened to jon after the talk with veidt?he just left...that is the only part i don't understand in the whole book...no spoiler needed in this past post too busy thinking...lol

Yeah, the whole "WTF is an alien doing in Watchmen" reaction from non-fans might indeed have prompted the edit in the movie ending for a somewhat more "plausible" one.

As to the whole New York 9/11 sensitivity thing the very fact that this movie's getting made might be a sign that America might just be able to finally overcome the emotional trauma of that day... Then again I'm also considering that Watchmen might've just simply slipped the cracks as far as the PC police are concerned (since, you know, they're too busy worrying about other stuff to pay attention to a comic book movie), and that once it actually comes out in theaters it's only then it'll prompt that late-reaction uproar over that uncanny ending (You know... like the conservatie parents who didn't KNOW what Twilight was actually about until it was too late...)

What do I think happened to Jon at the end? Here's an interesting list of wild, crazy theories about the whole book. As for me,

yeah Jon said that he might be interested in "creating his own life" elsewhere, but with him having all that emotional baggage I believe he's just gonna end up aimlessly wandering the universe like an emo

.

[entertheninja!]

Can't you let a boy dream Mr. NorthRaider?but seriously it makes more sense the way alan moore wrote it but on the bad side the first comers might like have a bitch fit and walk out of the theater when they see a giant vajayjay-like alien in new york...another thing too audiences might take wrongly is new york getting f'd up cause all that post 9/11 trauma you know?america is hella sensitive to that stuff...and what do you think happened to jon after the talk with veidt?he just left...that is the only part i don't understand in the whole book...no spoiler needed in this past post too busy thinking...lol

Yeah, the whole "WTF is an alien doing in Watchmen" reaction from non-fans might indeed have prompted the edit in the movie ending for a somewhat more "plausible" one.

As to the whole New York 9/11 sensitivity thing the very fact that this movie's getting made might be a sign that America might just be able to finally overcome the emotional trauma of that day... Then again I'm also considering that Watchmen might've just simply slipped the cracks as far as the PC police are concerned (since, you know, they're too busy worrying about other stuff to pay attention to a comic book movie), and that once it actually comes out in theaters it's only then it'll prompt that late-reaction uproar over that uncanny ending (You know... like the conservatie parents who didn't KNOW what Twilight was actually about until it was too late...)

What do I think happened to Jon at the end? Here's an interesting list of wild, crazy theories about the whole book. As for me,

yeah Jon said that he might be interested in "creating his own life" elsewhere, but with him having all that emotional baggage I believe he's just gonna end up aimlessly wandering the universe like an emo

.

haha lol and i guess your right about the 9/11 thing...yeah the PC police are busy watching cookie monster sings chocolate rain...also some of that shit on that link is hella weird like rorschach being V and dr manhattan breaking the 4th wall...another slepless night for the ninja...thanks for the info

Edited February 18, 2009 by entertheninja!

[Bob Harris]

I don't want to bore anybody and I think all of these black bars are annoying, but:

One part of this scenario that never leaves my mind is that even if Rorschach survived and then tried to reveal the truth to anybody, with him being who he is who will possibly believe him? Your concern over Ozymandias' act being undermined by Rorschach's revelation sorta remains nullified by the persisting fact of Rorschach's "bad" reputation in the establishment.

You might be right, I thought about that as well, also refering to Rorschach's journal finally delivered to the New Frontiersman. I guess people are very sensitive for conspiracy theories, so getting the hints in Rorschachs journal, some people might find evidents for the whole plan was a trick.

By now though we already know Snyder's changed the ending. It has already become pretty apparent from the trailers and interviews that Snyder had already eschewed

the original ending with the explosion caused by the fake alien

in exchange for one where

Dr. Manhattan possibly gets framed for the explosion

.

The thing is, that the end being changed, it might retain the same complexity the original ending has. If that's the case, I'm fine with the decision.

Losing the alien squid, we do loose the whole plot line where artists and scientists vansih into thin air. I really liked that idea in the comic, especially because professionals from both very different disciplines were needed to fulfill the plan. Snyder has to solve the problem that the Comedian found all those folks on the secret island when he came back from I-don't-know-where, because this finally leads to the necessity of him being murdered. I gues that's not too hard. The other thing is, if Dr. Manhattan will be the one to blame for these explosions, this situation has to be explained in a coherent way. Problems in my eyes: It's part of Veidts plan to get rid of Manhattan in the first place - the whole cancer fake -, when he realizes that he's way too powerful and unpredictable. This idea brings up the whole Mars plot line which in the end leads to Jon returning to earth. Why should Veidt try to get rid of Manhattan when his plan is to use him as the squid in the end? (Speaking of the squid: that's a minor problem, but his researches into genetics that finally led to the squid, also produced Bubastis. If he resigns the genetic program, why should he ever bring up his pet? Veidt isn't the kind of guy who does things just for fun.) And why should Manhattan even do something like these explosions, when he's absolutely not affect by human beings and any human affairs at all? Second thing, the alien invasion in Veidt's plan is an external influence on planet earth. To speak in Veidts metaphorical way, it's like the sword Alexander used when he solved the problem of the Gordian Knot. The peoples of our planet had to unite against something completely unknown. Does Manhatten fit that well? When he leaves earth at the end of the movie (does he?), do the people have to fear for him coming back trying to destroy the planet once more? I don't see this. These unknown squid aliens might do so, but Jon? Well, we'll see if Snyder is such a talented storyteller after all. I hope he is.

This is basically saying in a nutshell that

even with regard to a question as "simple" as "Who was the bad guy?" Watchmen is a very polarizing book. The conflicting perspectives on Ozymandias/Rorschach being the narrative's primary "antagonist" strikes me as very similar to all those messed-up Republican/Democrat debates... which just goes to show how Watchmen works as an effective allegory even in modern times

.

Yeah, it's always the simple questions which are the hardest to solve. I guess, refering to your suggestion, Ozymandias and Rorschach aren't the primary antagonists in Watchmen. Rorschach is a wimp compared to Veidt. He's, like I said, quite similar to him, since both have this strange vision of how society should be, and both do what ever matters to realize this vision. But in that sense, when Veidt is Champions League football, Rorschach's a highschool hobby player. I guess the strongest antagonist to Veidt is the Comedian. He's like the complete opposite of everything Veidt stands for, although Veidt on the other hand says, that he and Blake are quite similar. Blake declines the validation of every single ethical maxim, every maxim at all. In his nihilistic view nothing he ever does could be judged as immoral, in the same way he never judges anybody. Human concerns about ethic itself are the joke he's laughing at. (But then again - and here's another time when Watchmen is far to complex to see things in olny one way - he's concerned and caring for his daughter. She does mean something to him. In some way.) And the Comedian is the only one who ever beat Veidt in his whole life. And that twice! The first time in a fist fight, the second time at the Crimebusters fiasco, when the smartes guy on earth has to be told what the real problems are. For that, of course, Veidt had to not just kill him, but beat him up completely for delayed satisfaction. The Comedian as well is the only character who puts all of his cards on the table. Always. He's a total bitch, a raping and killing bastard and you should always keep that in mind, but on the other hand, he's the most honest character of all. I really hated him when I started reading Watchmen the first time, but towards the end he became by far my favorite character. And he still is.

Somehow.

I find this interesting since this observation seems to have a cyclical quality to it: the very fact that

people like Ozymandias are even capable of doing something like blowing up New York sort of spurns the masses' overall mistrust of costumed heroes in the first place. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the very reason the Keene Act was even put into effect was precisely because people hoped to avoid such future "power-tripping" by masks. I guess the whole logic of this just got real fuzzy thanks to all that nuke paranoia that sidetracked it

.

You're right. And maybe that's why Veidt indeed is the smartest guy on the planet.

He exactly knew when he had to quit his masked adventurism to start pulling the strings behind the scenes and being much-admired by public.

(I do absolutely love the "After The Masquarade" Interview with Veidt in Chapter XI!)

So, Mr. NorthRaider, it's really fun to fanboy debate with you!

Edited February 18, 2009 by Bob Harris

[karamazov80]

Footage!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBKRZXR2YFM...e-watchmen-clip

[Bob Harris]

(I kinda thought I killed that thread with all the black bars...)

Thanks for the link, karamazov. I'm a little skeptic right now. I really like the visual adaption, but I don't know how to judge the rest. Maybe I should wait with it, but I mean, take that scene were Dan informs Veidt about the "mask-killer". In the comic it's Rorschach who does it, so why change? (Besides Dan doesn't usually just talks to Veidt.) I don't want to fanboy debate again, but I guess Moore is the better storyteller and Snyder might not realize all the functions that first chapter offers. When Rorschach visits the other masked adventurers, he also introduces them to the reader and shows off the complex hierarchy of powers between them. (Oh no, here come the black bars again...)

Breaking into Dan's house, sitting in his kitchen, Rorschach is physically and mentally superiror. He leads the conversation and shows Dan his limitations and accuses him of quitting. Dan has no chance and sits dejected and resigned next to his costume. Veidt is different, he isn't as passive as Dan, not a nostalgic wimp, but grounded and physically and mentally active as a sportsman and head of a huge company. The discussion deals on a moral level with different perspectives (on the Comedian) and ends in a tie. Talking to Jon and Laurie afterwards is a different scenario. Rorschach's inferior to Jon in every sense: Jon's not surprised by the news, untouched by Rorschach's agitations and he's the only dialog partner who ends the conversation himself by teleporting Rorschach outside of the building. Laurie however is touched from the beginning, talking on an emotional level and can't be convinced by any argument. Everytime Rorschach talks to one of the other "heroes", the reader is able to compare this one not only with Rorschach, but also to the others, regarding Rorschach as a measure.

These might be fanboyish things, but it also shows how incredible, elaborate and complex Moore's storytelling is. So I'm kind of sceptic about those "little changes" we might see.

Edited February 19, 2009 by Bob Harris

[entertheninja!]

im having a mini freakout and im pondering whether or not it will be good...i love the book and i hope will love the music but the slow motion is a bit excessive and then ackerman's acting was stale...i'm scared man someone comfort me...

[Trekker 42]

I'm excited about this movie. I really am. Even moreso after seeing those clips.

[buttheadsmate]

Two of the biggest

oldest

fanboys at SDCC 08 were BHM & TBT who went to hear Dave Gibbons talk about his involvement in the Watchmen in one of the seminars. I thoroughly enjoyed it but I have to confess it was TBT who explained to me who he was

.......TBT explained who Dave Gibbons was ....not who he was

Who is TBT?

[Jad]

im having a mini freakout and im pondering whether or not it will be good...i love the book and i hope will love the music but the slow motion is a bit excessive and then ackerman's acting was stale...i'm scared man someone comfort me...

This should comfort you. No matter how the movie turns out, the book will continue to exist, and to rock hard-core, for generations to come.

And to answer your question from earlier, I lived in San Diego for a year, and spent a lot of time on that stretch of shore.

[IndieMate]

There really is no spoiler here, I just love these black lines! Rorschach is killed by Dr. Manhattan...

[entertheninja!]

im having a mini freakout and im pondering whether or not it will be good...i love the book and i hope will love the music but the slow motion is a bit excessive and then ackerman's acting was stale...i'm scared man someone comfort me...

This should comfort you. No matter how the movie turns out, the book will continue to exist, and to rock hard-core, for generations to come.

And to answer your question from earlier, I lived in San Diego for a year, and spent a lot of time on that stretch of shore.

thats cool and awesome i love it over there and we went right when the sea lions came...it was cool.

There really is no spoiler here, I just love these black lines! Rorschach is killed by Dr. Manhattan...

lol i do to love these lines...or is he killed by dr. manhattan?he couldve been teleported to london put into an asylum right when war was beginning burned to death then he couldve become V...orrrrr he died.

Edited February 20, 2009 by entertheninja!

[SErge]

3 part behind the scenes videos

http://www.watchmencomicmovie.com/022009-w...enes-videos.php

enjoy!

[NorthRaider]

Well, with only a few weeks to go before the Watchmen premiere, I'm going to try to resist watching any preview/behind-the-scenes videos (bar the first two official trailers) so that I'll get surprised once I actually enter the theater. Of course I'm now a little concerned about the "bad" buzz I'm now hearing from other people about stuff like Ozymandias' casting and the rewriting of several crucial scenes, but as of today I'm going to reserve all judgment for after I watch the movie.

Like Jad said, if this movie reeks then at least we'll have the comic to fall back on. My only worry from here on end will be the potential headache we'll face convincing first-timers to read the comic even AFTER seeing Snyder's version. Suddenly, I sympathize greatly with all those 300 and V For Vendetta purists.

[karamazov80]

If nothing else, we are now getting Watchmen toys, which for whatever reason, we never got previous to this. DC Direct, Kubricks, and people on the Sideshow forums seem to strongly believe that Hot Toys figures are coming.