posted
I will also go on record as not knowing this movie was about to open and not having read the graphic novel. I did think the thread was about some movie or tv show when I saw the title, probably because I've vaguely heard of the GN. Anyway, I don't watch tv and sometimes pop culture passes me by entirely. I don't find it a great loss, or else I would keep up more. Not trying to be elitist, just mentioning that I prefer to spend my precious free time doing other things.
I don't have anything against graphic novels, though. I think it's a genre that has good and mediocre and bad stuff in it like any other, and I'm interested in reading the good stuff. The main fact that has held me back so far is that they're more expensive for the amount of story you get than regular word-only novels.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay guys, my girlfriend is home, and sick, so I'm taking a break from this conversation. I'll probably catch up with it in a while, unless it's totally moved on by then. Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Dr. Manhattan was growing more detatched from human kind, and most people thought that the Russians were going to attack anyway. True or not, that was the psychological state of the culture, so I dont blame the rest of the characters from realizing that letting the world think there was an alien attack, and therefore stopping conflict--where people on one side were going to die even if Dr. Manhattan stopped a nuclear holocaust-- at the cost of morally ambigious retribution.
I think they wished they could have stopped it, saving lives-- to them being a hero was never about punishing the wicked. They would have stopped it and hoped for a solution without killing anyone.
And, yeah, comics are expensive. I probably wouldnt but any if I didnt intend to let other people borrow them.
Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
I think Dr. Manhattan was a major wuss, which is ironic because he is the most powerful being EVER. And yet Rorschach, he was the one willing to do the right thing and stand up against Veilt at the risk of his life. Rorschach is awesome. If I had a black and white rabbit I'd name it after him. Although he's rather racist, homophobic and scarily conservative. Yet I like him best. Ironic.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
What umberhulk said. Rorschach, ultimately, is the one costumed adventurer whose actions completely justify the public outcry against superheroes. People fear the heroes not because they fight crime, or take a stand against criminal elements, but because they are vigilantes, hiding their identities and acting as judge, jury and executioner all in one. No accountability. No second opinion. And yes, no compromise. Part of Alan Moore's point in writing Rorschach's character is that ultimately this is dangerous. Civilization cannot function if individuals are free to take the law into their own hands, and to mete out "justice" however they see fit.
Rorschach's honesty and devotion to his ideals are certainly admirable. That doesn't mean they can't also be frightening and immoral. And taken to its logical conclusion, if Rorschach had had anywhere near the power that Veidt commanded, the world would have been engulfed in bloodshed and destruction. Rorschach as an political and economic power, rather than a marginalized alley-walker, would have been Hitler Deux, Alexander the Great without the intellectual bent.
Dr. Manhattan is not a "wuss." He doesn't submit to Veidt's plan out of fear. Nor does he leave Earth out of cowardice. He is what Moore proposes that any truly superpowered entity would become: detached from the world, able to see so far and so broadly that each individual thing means nothing more than the next. It's the difference between standing next to the Empire State Building and trying to see it from the surface of the Moon.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: The only reason the human race was on the verge of self-annihilation is because Ozy drove Manhattan away in the first place... and possibly because Manhattan was foolish enough to let himself be associated so closely with the US.
If they care enough about earth's stability to be complicit in the senseless massacre of millions, they could have encouraged him to solve the world's problems.
Are you kidding? The world was heading for disaster long before Manhattan was driven away. He was like the valve on a compressed gas container. The pressure was building and his presence was keeping it from exploding for the time being, but something was going to give.
I'm not saying that Ozymandias' solution was a good one or that I condone it, but the simple fact is that he did it... No one could stop it because they didn't see it coming. Thus, the issue of the character's morality with regards to the situation is based on what they chose to do after the fact. No one condoned it, but what does exposing the scheme fix? How is it right to pursue the punishment of one man if the price for it is plunging the world back into chaos?
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Spoilers He really is a wuss though. He's the most powerful being, yet he's just a puppet for the united states government. He even remarks about how he's always just followed along. Like he got into pocket watches because his father wanted him too. Or when his father dumped out the watch pieces he got into nuclear science. He doesn't see the use of fighting the Vietnam war, but he goes along with it anyway. He's got the option and the power to just say no. He sees the future, past and present at the same time, but he just goes along like a puppet and he says he's the only one who can see the strings. Rorschach on the other hand is an ordinary human going out doing what he thinks is the right thing. He's an extremist and pretty insane if you ask me, but he still tries to do what he thinks is right and fight against crime. He'd never allow himself to become anyone's puppet the way Dr. Manhattan did. Of course that is just my opinion and warped interpretation.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
I'll grant you that Jon Osterman was a wuss - at least in the sense that he was easily led. And early Dr. Manhattan maintained a certain amount of Osterman's wussiness in that respect. However, the as his realization of his power increases, so too does the detachment. By the time of the Comedian's murder, Manhattan only continues to do research for the government because he doesn't really have anything better to do. He certainly no longer fights crime nor protects American political interests - remember that he allows JFK to die, despite knowing about it long in advance and obviously having the capability to stop it.
I don't disagree that Dr. Manhattan's actions throughout the book are immoral (or at least amoral), from our perspective. I do think that Dr. Manhattan himself, at least in the post-Comedian time period, would consider all this talk of "doing the right thing" rather pointless. What is morality to a being that sees human beings as little more than their component atoms?
As for Rorschach... he may be doing what he thinks is right, but Moore is delving deeper than that. With Rorschach moreso than anyone else in "Watchmen," he is questioning the most basic premise of superhero stories: can we allow individuals to force their own moral code upon others, on pain of injury or death? Again, Rorschach was willing to kill over a criminal action as petty as owning a minor banned substance - the equivalent of murdering someone because they're using marijuana for medicinal purposes. Imagine if he were a real person, rather than a character in a comic book. Would you still condone his actions? His attitude? His approach to justice?
The fundamental idea behind "Watchmen" is an exploration of how the real world would react to "costumed adventurers." What would we do if we had to deal with the collateral damage Superman left behind? What kind of person would really dress up as a bat or an owl and go out at night to hunt criminals? And how would the existence of such men and women affect society as a whole? Moore posits that a true superman would inspire equal parts admiration and mind-melting terror (from friends and foes alike), and non-superpowered heroes would be viewed as vigilantes and extremists - and somewhat justifiably so.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ahhh. I had a lot of admiration for Watchmen after reading it for the first time, but every time I read a discussion of it online, I think it's even awesome...er.
Posts: 349 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
But it's not like he's the only one who tried to stop him. After the fact, exposing what Veidt did would have only destroyed any good that came from it. The options were: 1) millions dead, world peace, one monster goes unpunished. 2) millions dead, person responsible is punished, human race remains of the brink of self destruction. (probably even closer to it than before).
From my perspective what Rorshach wanted to do was ultimately incredibly selfish.
END SPOILERS
I disagree completely. What's Veidt's solution? To get the world united under some kind of dictatorship that pours all of its energy into defending against a non-existent threat?
The sequel to Watchmen would be that vast amounts of cash and effort go into weapons research, and after the threat doesn't turn up, the new weapons tech winds up destroying the planet anyway.
Nothing good comes from a lie.
As far as Rorschach goes, he's based on the Question, who was an explicitly Objectivist character. Moore knew that, and painted him as absurdly obsessed and blindered because that's what he thinks of Objectivism. In fact, if you look at page 21 in the last issue, the first panel says something like "Now what would you call that? 'Blotting out reality', perhaps?" "Blotting out reality" is a phrase taken from John Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged. It's clear that Moore didn't think of Rorschach as dying heroically, but I disagree with him, too.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I came into this thread expecting a philosophical discussion, aka Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? , not graphic novels and upcoming movies.
I would be really sad for you if I thought that was true.
Sorry if it makes you sad, but it is absolutely true. Until this thread I had never heard to the graphic novel The Watchmen or the upcoming movie. I'm not into graphic novels.
Well... The graphic novel IS a discussion of Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?. Maybe not entirely philosophical, but certainly based off the question.
Posts: 382 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: As far as Rorschach goes, he's based on the Question, who was an explicitly Objectivist character. Moore knew that, and painted him as absurdly obsessed and blindered because that's what he thinks of Objectivism. In fact, if you look at page 21 in the last issue, the first panel says something like "Now what would you call that? 'Blotting out reality', perhaps?" "Blotting out reality" is a phrase taken from John Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged. It's clear that Moore didn't think of Rorschach as dying heroically, but I disagree with him, too.
Rorschach was not an Objectivist.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, Moore is on the record that Rorschach was based only partially on the Question. He was more strongly modeled after Ditko's lesser-known (and far more extreme) vigilante Mister A...who indeed was a crazy, crazy character, whether Ditko realized it or not.
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: As far as Rorschach goes, he's based on the Question, who was an explicitly Objectivist character. Moore knew that, and painted him as absurdly obsessed and blindered because that's what he thinks of Objectivism. In fact, if you look at page 21 in the last issue, the first panel says something like "Now what would you call that? 'Blotting out reality', perhaps?" "Blotting out reality" is a phrase taken from John Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged. It's clear that Moore didn't think of Rorschach as dying heroically, but I disagree with him, too.
Rorschach was not an Objectivist.
No kidding. He was, however, Moore's parody of an Objectivist. That's exactly why he included the line from Atlas Shrugged.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: My mistake, I got the Question and Mister A mixed up.
What do you see as crazy about Mister A?
The guy openly states he has no mercy or compassion for the "guilty"...in fact, he quite often lets them die terrible deaths.
But what if he was mistaken about someone's guilt? He's not God. A complete and total lack of mercy + a refusal to ever even consider he's wrong= crazy. Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Strangely enough, Rorschach admired the Comedian despite his obviously amoral actions, even defending his attempted rape of Sally Jupiter as a mere "moral lapse". He'd killed other people for such "moral lapses". I guess he had a soft spot for potential father figures.
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't get his admiration of the Comedian, but it's a good graphic novel because everyone is so complex.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I said, I suspect that it's a father figure thing. He even invented an image of his own father as some great man even though he'd never met him. If Veidt was 20 years older Rorschach probably would have been on his side.
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: No kidding. He was, however, Moore's parody of an Objectivist. That's exactly why he included the line from Atlas Shrugged.
Rorschach is not Moore's parody of an Objectivist. Even Steve Ditko will assure you that. If as written he was a parody of an objectivist he would be a bad one, as his actions and ideals are most questionable morally where and when they depart from how a hypothetical comic ideal of Objectivism would act.
That said, 'absurdly obsessed and blindered' as a critique would be an effective parody because it hits pretty close to home for Randians, who are notoriously cultish and obsessive.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obviously it must be good if it generates this wide a difference of opinions on the meanings and the motivations of various characters. Y'all are intriguing me. Is it a single graphic novel or a series?
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I liked the graphic novel, but honestly I think I enjoyed the "Under the Hood*" excerpts that were interspersed throughout the book [more].
*For those who haven't read the novel, Under the Hood is the fictitious autobiography of a superhero from the first generations of heroes in the book's universe. I would happily buy and read it if someone talented were to write the whole thing.
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Obviously it must be good if it generates this wide a difference of opinions on the meanings and the motivations of various characters. Y'all are intriguing me. Is it a single graphic novel or a series?
Just stop somewhere where you can buy comics, and ask the local fauna for the complete Watchmen. It'll have a smiley face with some blood dripped on it on the cover.
Even though I think that comics are a pretty bunk medium full of pablum, Watchmen is legitimately one of the better works under any medium. There's more substance to it than there is in many bestseller novels.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Obviously it must be good if it generates this wide a difference of opinions on the meanings and the motivations of various characters. Y'all are intriguing me. Is it a single graphic novel or a series?
Both, actually. I just reread it this past weekend, and I read the original 12 issues that I got as they were coming out. But the 12 issue series is packaged as a single bound volume and sold as the graphic novel it actually is. You can get it in probably any bookstore now that the movie is coming out so soon.
There's also a parody called Watchmensch, which basically portrays some of the problems Alan Moore had with DC comics. I haven't read it yet, but I'm looking forward to it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: No kidding. He was, however, Moore's parody of an Objectivist. That's exactly why he included the line from Atlas Shrugged.
Rorschach is not Moore's parody of an Objectivist. Even Steve Ditko will assure you that. If as written he was a parody of an objectivist he would be a bad one, as his actions and ideals are most questionable morally where and when they depart from how a hypothetical comic ideal of Objectivism would act.
Yes, he was a parody of an Objectivist. And no, I don't think Steve Ditko would say otherwise. Also, I don't think Moore intended it as a parody; I suspect he really thinks that's how Objectivists think and act. They aren't.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: That said, 'absurdly obsessed and blindered' as a critique would be an effective parody because it hits pretty close to home for Randians, who are notoriously cultish and obsessive.
I wouldn't know. The few Objectivists I've met aren't like that. Randians are something else.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
If your response is "Nuh uh" my response is "Yeah huh" and we can go around in circles for a while, I'm sure.
quote:Also, I don't think Moore intended it as a parody; I suspect he really thinks that's how Objectivists think and act.
Moore is pretty aware that objectivists aren't relentless statists who are willing to commit to force, fraud, and invasion of privacy where and when they consider the losses involved to be collateral damage in the pursuit of fervent right-wing statist nationalism, because Moore is not an idiot. Rorschach is not an objectivist or a faux-objectivist and it's telling that objectivists are so worried about moore's disdain for objectivism that they would assume these things about rorschach.
quote: The few Objectivists I've met aren't like that.
The many objectivists I've met are like that.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How do you explain the "blotting out reality" comment? Look at it in context, and tell me that wasn't a slam at Rorschach as an Objectivist strawman.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess someone who is sensitive to criticisms of objectivist philosophy might interpret the comment in that light.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: How do you explain the "blotting out reality" comment? Look at it in context, and tell me that wasn't a slam at Rorschach as an Objectivist strawman.
In context, Rorscach is a man with an inkblot as a face.
In context, a google search for the phrase doesn't show that the phrase is assuredly one fundamentally associated with Ayn Rand or any character in her novels.
In whole, that Moore intended it as a slam at Objectivism is fundamentally a bald assumption by you, of which we have no proof.
So if this is the proof you are relying on to make Rorschach into an "Objectivist strawman" then I'm letting the jury go home early, since it's not a real case, what with beyond that Rorschach not actually acting like an Objectivist, or philosophizing as an Objectivist, in external or internal monologue or in his diary.Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Wow. A. This broad needs Valerian tea. B. She's making me want to see the movie MORE. Not that I like gore and everything, but it sounds true to the comic to an extent. But dang does she need to chill.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
People like this annoy me. Watchmen has not been marketed as a family-friendly superhero movie at all, and this woman clearly knew NOTHING about the source material going into it. This is not Spider-man! She claims that it's marketed at kids because there are "action figures"? They're collector's pieces priced at nearly $200 a set! Yes, clearly they're meant for your 6 year old to play with. The R rating should have been enough of a hint, but I guess she thought that it was going to be one of those "nice" R-rated films.
quote: If you see it yourself, you're also probably a moron and a vapid, indecent human being.
If you say so.
*edited to rant more.
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
EXACTLY! Which is why she is burning my biscuits, broiling my bacon.
She should read the GN but she will not. Instead she will say it's evil and bad and evil and depraved.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: B. She's making me want to see the movie MORE.
Holy crap, no kidding. Now I REALLY can't wait
Edit: Found this in one of the comments to that article:
quote:The action figures are not being marketed to kids. They are being marketed to adults. Loser adults, yes, but adults nonetheless.
Yikes. I really should not let myself read comments, be it youtube or a blog. It makes me think evil and angry thoughts.
Posts: 349 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
That entire article could be titled "Debbie Schlussel could not possibly have been more clueless about Watchmen"
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
That entire article could be titled "Debbie Schlussel could not possibly have been more clueless about Watchmen"
I want a rorsharch figure... And one of those expensive Joker figures... But I am responsible.
I didn't even by that video game I wanted. Or that wine... Or that 6 dollar orange juice because I'm not paying that much for orange juice even if it's the best I've had.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The best (worst?) part was the all Caps responses to her comments. And I quote: "You flipping Watchmen idiots." o_O
Posts: 349 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly, that article was the stupidest thing I've read on the internet in weeks... and this is the internet I'm talking about!
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just remember to post spoiler warnings yourself. I want to be surprised by changes between the movie and the book.
Oh, and in the words of Debbie:
quote:K: AH, YES--THE BACKGROUND EXCUSE. SO, IF THERE'S A "BACKGROUND" OF A "GRAPHIC NOVEL" THAT MAKES ALL OF THIS GRAPHIC VIOLENCE AND DEPRAVITY LIKE TOTALLY AWESOME. I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IT'S ABOUT AND THE BACKGROUND, AND THAT DOESN'T JUSTIFY A THING. SO SAD FOR HITLER--HE COMMITTED SUICIDE WAY TOO SOON. IF HE'D ONLY HUNG ON TO THE YEAR 2009 AND THE "BACKGROUND" AND "GRAPHIC NOVEL" EXCUSE, THAT WOULD MAKE THINGS SO MUCH BETTER. I GOT THE "MESSAGE"--NOT SURE HOW IT JUSTIFIES A THING. SOME SAY HITLER HAD A "GREAT MESSAGE." EVER READ MEIN KAMPF? I GUESS MAYBE A MESSAGE JUSTIFIES COOKING PEOPLE IN OVENS, TOO. BUT, HEY, HE FORGOT TO MAKE MEIN KAMPF INTO A GRAPHIC NOVEL. BIG MISTAKE.
OH, AND YES, LET'S MAKE THE WORLD EVEN MORE OF A DARK SCARY PLACE BY MAKING THESE KINDS OF MOVIES TO BE INHALED BY PEOPLE LIKE YOU. AWESOME. DS]
This woman apparently doesn't understand the difference between fiction and reality.
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know. I need a helmet to block her stupiditiness from seeping into my brain... She probably has never read Spawn or seen the animated series either, huh? Man, she sucks... She is uncool.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:At the same time, the Soviets are about to nuke America. It's 1985 and Nixon is President. We've won in Vietnam. Oh, and Henry Kissinger has a Russian accent.
While I'm on the subject of having my brain cells die upon exposure to debbie's words, who wants to bet that they gave Kissinger an accent that is accurate, and that Debbie Schlussel is simply unaware that Kissinger has that accent?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Schlussel, who speaks Hebrew, Arabic, French, and Russian, works closely with several Federal law enforcement agencies, consulting on fighting the domestic War on Terrorism, and has provided them with much useful information.
I'm not sure which is more disturbing...
Posts: 382 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had the advantage of knowing beforehand that Debbie is profoundly retarded. Trust me. She writes stuff that makes the recent World Watches seem downright tame and reasonable. But now I can witness the added glory of knowing that she's a stalwart "Conservative answer" to the .. uh, apparent .. liberal hollywood review structure, or something.
Seriously. Schlussel considers herself a movie reviewer? My cup runneth over.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
