NationStates Jolt Archive

Movie coming out, etc, etc, who's your favorite character from Watchmen? I find that the only character who I really liked was Rorschach (Probably says something about me, psychologically speaking:tongue:). I didn't like the Silk Spectre for her over reactive personality. I didn't like how unsure Nite Owl was, and Dr. Manhattan... Well, I don't like how detached he was, and almost dooming the US and Russia to a Nuclear war by going off to Mars, and when he came back, he oh-so-suddenly decided he did care, and proved it by
*spoiler for those of you who STILL haven't read the comic*
Killing Rorschach.
*Spoiler end*

Ozymandias killed, what, two million people? Although I suppose it was needed because of Dr. Manhattan's actions. And of course, the Comedian was a psycho, more so than Rorschach.

So, how about you NSGers?

Hmm I dunno. Rorschach was cool, Ozymandias was pretty misunderstood but he did things for the greater good. I didn't like the Silk Spectre either. Even though he was in it for a short while, Hooded Justice left a big impression on me.

Rorschach...because he upheld the Moral Imperative without thought to the consequence. We don't need more utilitarianists in the world.

Rorshach, definitely. Not because I identify with him; just because he's the most interesting character.

Nite Owl II

Because, somehow, I suspect that - at the moment of ultimate crisis - I'd be the well-intentioned one who meant well, and was trying his best, but turned out to be utterly impotent in the face of the more powerful forces around me.

Nite Owl II, really. Ultimately the most grounded of all the heroes. He didn't come to being a costumed hero with as much or the same kind of baggage that the others did but rather got his baggage from it. He went into it and out with the best intentions and might be what a 'better self' would have done if afforded that opportunity. For the rest of them (Spectre perhaps excluded) 'good' or 'bad', 'hero' or 'villain' were arbitrary excuses to enact their violent temperament, obviously most underscored by The Comedian and Rorschach. Those two are the boldest indictment of the 'violence for good' fantasy and as all good portraits end up with the Archie Bunker effect.

Nite Owl II

Because, somehow, I suspect that - at the moment of ultimate crisis - I'd be the well-intentioned one who meant well, and was trying his best, but turned out to be utterly impotent in the face of the more powerful forces around me.

Pretty good.

Ozymandias because I enjoy a decent villain.

Ozymandias and Doctor Manhattan were easily my favorites.

Ozymandias because I enjoy a decent villain.

Why the hell do you not use "spoiler" tags?

Ozymandias and Doctor Manhattan were easily my favorites.

Wait, I can understand Ozymandias, but, just out of curiosity, why Dr. Manhattan?

Why the hell do you not use "spoiler" tags?

Hmmm, a thread about favorite characters from a comic...

Wait, I can understand Ozymandias, but, just out of curiosity, why Dr. Manhattan?

On life: "In my opinion, it is a highly overrated phenomenon."

I liked his philosophy from the moment he introduced it near the beginning of the comic.

Besides, God makes an interesting super-hero.

On life: "In my opinion, it is a highly overrated phenomenon."

I liked his philosophy from the moment he introduced near the beginning of the comic.

Besides, God makes an interesting super-hero.

Fair enough.

Hmmm, a thread about favorite characters from a comic...

A limited-series comic with loads of plot twists, soon to be a film.

A limited-series comic with loads of plot twists, soon to be a film.

So perhaps if you are unaware of the plot you shouldn't be reading a thread about favorite characters? No need for redundancy.

Rorshach, definitely. Not because I identify with him; just because he's the most interesting character.
This.
Yeah, he was a creep, and I'd rather not be in a darkened alleyway with him for fear that he might have seen me jaywalking sometime last week, but he had an interesting and sympathetic back story.
Ozymandius was just a huge, narcissistic douche. Doctor Manhattan was worse than useless because he refused to take advantage of his powers to, you know, do important things. They both also had far too many tedious monologues, and I skip over their dialogue entirely when rereading Watchmen.

Ozymandias and Doctor Manhattan were easily my favorites.

I didn't really like Dr. Manhattan because the whole precognition/determinism aspect wasn't quite played out as well as I would have liked. Sure, he can see the future, has no free will to change it, but he can't see how the story ends because of the electromagnetic radiation (or whatever it was)? Seemed like a bit of a cop-out.

Ozymandius was just a huge, narcissistic douche.

Yet no super-hero is really like him.

Doctor Manhattan was worse than useless because he refused to take advantage of his powers to, you know, do important things.

He cannot, he made that clear. Besides, he has virtually no feelings, good or bad, for humans--until the end.

He did, however, create the world; without both Doctor Manhattan and Ozymandias, there would be no creation.

They both also had far too many tedious monologues, and I skip over their dialogue entirely when rereading Watchmen.

A pity, because their speeches contain most of the subtleties and metaphors of the story.

Yet no super-hero is really like him.
He's more in the "villain" category of "things that are super."
And I don't see what's so special. Self-obsessed, made himself superhuman through exercise, has his own master plan to destroy the world and make it in his image, etc.
He's a deconstruction, originality wasn't really the first thing in Alan Moore's mind when creating him.
He cannot, he made that clear. Besides, he has virtually no feelings, good or bad, for humans--until the end.
He does have feelings, that's why he freaks out when everyone corners him. If he were truly detached he'd have gone straight to Mars, sans temper tantrum. His relationships with the women in his life similarly betray that, yes, he is capable of emotions and does place value on human contact.
Similarly, there is nothing stopping him from stepping outside of his determinist script. He could just as easily have stopped JFK's assassination once he saw it happen.
His "philosophy" is just an excuse for his personal fears and weaknesses.
(And, no, I'm not going to use spoiler tags. If someone hasn't already read the book in the 20+ years it has been out, why are they in this thread?)
A pity, because their speeches contain most of the subtleties and metaphors of the story.
Their speeches contain a whole lot of self-justifying bullshit wrapped in annoying language. That's about it, really.

Anyone else think the role of Silk Spectre II is being updated for the more PC realities of this era? In the graphic novel, she's not really a major player.

Ozymandias because I enjoy...

Um, the part I didn't include, but you saw fit to? Really, really stupid thing to say. Spoiler tags exist for a reason.

*snip*

(And, no, I'm not going to use spoiler tags. If someone hasn't already read the book in the 20+ years it has been out, why are they in this thread?)

Because it's polite? Jesus, what the hell happened to consideration? I'VE read it, clearly YOU have, but many people here probably weren't born when it was created and maybe -- just maybe -- thought this thread was about the movie, given that it's being released in two weeks.

Other than that, some good character analysis there.

Anyone else think the role of Silk Spectre II is being updated for the more PC realities of this era? In the graphic novel, she's not really a major player.

I think she's a fairly major player. Heck, I'd say she and Nite Owl are pretty much the central characters, really. They're the two basically normal, sane ones we can identify with in the midst of all the crazy around them.

I think she's a fairly major player. Heck, I'd say she and Nite Owl are pretty much the central characters, really. They're the two basically normal, sane ones we can identify with in the midst of all the crazy around them.

I suppose, but she was written...I dunno, not shrewish, like her mother, but still fairly submissive, even for 1985.

I've always liked the fact that, with the exception of Dr. 212, the heros were just very dedicated physical specimens. Kinda like Batman in the newest movie incarnation.

I suppose, but she was written...I dunno, not shrewish, like her mother, but still fairly submissive, even for 1985.

Hmm. I don't see her as particularly submissive, but then, I may have rather a different scale than most people. :p

I mean, sure, she's fairly willing to go along with whatever the people she cares about want in the flashbacks to her teenage years, but in all the "present" action she seems to be in control of her own destiny and such. Among other things, she quite clearly initiates things with Nite Owl, who's being all shy and dorky.

Anyone else think the role of Silk Spectre II is being updated for the more PC realities of this era? In the graphic novel, she's not really a major player.


"PC"? Tired bogeyman.

And to be honest, I don't think I've seen a thing in the trailer that isn't a frame from the comic book.

Rorschach was a fascinating character, but The Comedian was badass in a completely psycho sort of way. Gotta love a guy that smokes a cigar while bruning VC alive with a flamethrower.

Hmm. I don't see her as particularly submissive, but then, I may have rather a different scale than most people. :p

I mean, sure, she's fairly willing to go along with whatever the people she cares about want in the flashbacks to her teenage years, but in all the "present" action she seems to be in control of her own destiny and such. Among other things, she quite clearly initiates things with Nite Owl, who's being all shy and dorky.

All true, but what about her time with Dr. 212? I suppose, looking at the book again (I should just go ahead and read it one more time before March 6th), I can see that she gradually acquires self-confidence after leaving him and falling for the dork, which is a plot device I never get tired of.

"PC"? Tired bogeyman.

Glib, but doesn't answer the question.

And to be honest, I don't think I've seen a thing in the trailer that isn't a frame from the comic book.

Yeah, I've been to the website, too. Cool stuff.

All true, but what about her time with Dr. 212? I suppose, looking at the book again (I should just go ahead and read it one more time before March 6th), I can see that she gradually acquires self-confidence after leaving him and falling for the dork, which is a plot device I never get tired of.


Well, she hooked up with Dr. Manhattan when she was, what, 16? She's allowed to be stupid then, I figure. I kinda got the sense that things very gradually got worse as he became more and more "weird blue superhuman robo-man" and less and less "actual human being who likes her," so she's really only been putting up with total shit from him comparatively recently. I don't honestly remember how much of that interpretation was textually supported and how much I just made up to fill in the blanks, though. :p

I do quite like her hitting on Nite Owl by taking off his glasses and declaring him ravishing, though, either way. :tongue:

Well, she hooked up with Dr. Manhattan when she was, what, 16? She's allowed to be stupid then, I figure. I kinda got the sense that things very gradually got worse as he became more and more "weird blue superhuman robo-man" and less and less "actual human being who likes her," so she's really only been putting up with total shit from him comparatively recently. I don't honestly remember how much of that interpretation was textually supported and how much I just made up to fill in the blanks, though. :p

Excellently put. I agree.

I do quite like her hitting on Nite Owl by taking off his glasses and declaring him ravishing, though, either way. :tongue:

Meh, cliché. I like to be able to see who I'm kissing, at least at first. :rolleyes:

Meh, cliché. I like to be able to see who I'm kissing, at least at first. :rolleyes:

Oh, it's totally cliche. Except generally, it's a guy doing it to the magically-transformed-from-geek-to-sexy girl. I find it amusing to see the roles reversed. :)

Glib, but doesn't answer the question.


No, it dismisses the ridiculous part. The second line answered the only part of the question worth addressing.

Anyone else think the role of Silk Spectre II is being updated for the more PC realities of this era? In the graphic novel, she's not really a major player.

While I don't think it is necessarily for "PC realities" or even "updated" the previews definitely give a sense that her character will be more "bad ass" than in the original, especially considering how Evey from Moore's other work, V for Vendetta was treated.

Now, I can't really say I had a favorite character from this. I got the general sense that all of them were supposed to be somewhat unsympathetic, except for perhaps some of the civilian characters. I also think that Dr. Manhattan is getting a bit short changed here. He is supposed to represent a man who goes from being just a person one day to suddenly having god-like powers the next. I imagine that would probably fuck with your sensibilities a bit. He on the one hand, tries to still be a person, but as he now has the possibility to understand how the entire universe works, it doesn't quite work out. Kind of supposed to lay waste to the "Superman" hero trope.

'Watchmen' was one of the few comic books(excuse me, graphic novels) that I've ever read. I was dating this girl who was big into that sort of thing and she recommended it. It was pretty good, one of the few that I've ever bought for myself. I always liked Rorshach and The Comedian the best, mostly because they seemed like the most 'real' characters.

I'll probably go and see the movie, but I'll give it a couple of weeks, let the fanboy die down and the theatres air out.

"I broke his arm, and then everyone of his fingers. Turns out he didn't know anything. Feel slightly depressed"

God Bless Rorschach. I mean, fair enough, he's a monster, but at least he's unnerving cool.

What is Watchmen actually about?

What is Watchmen actually about?

Very human superheroes trying to find thier place in the real world.

"I broke his arm, and then everyone of his fingers. Turns out he didn't know anything. Feel slightly depressed"

God Bless Rorschach. I mean, fair enough, he's a monster, but at least he's unnerving cool.

"Won't insult legendary underworld solidarity by suggesting you surrender name without torture."
Epic.:D

Among other things, she quite clearly initiates things with Nite Owl, who's being all shy and dorky.
And gives him a good bollocking when it's needed.

What is Watchmen actually about?
Very human superheroes trying to find thier place in the real world.
And the real world reacting to them.

And the Cold War.

And other things.

Very human superheroes trying to find thier place in the real world.

So essentially it's like X-men?

So essentially it's like X-men?

Before Watchmen most super heroes were infalible and perfect people who did not face every day problems and issues, they knew exactly what thier place in the world was, and comics did not look at heroes as ordinary people (Notable exception is Iron Man). Watchmen helped to usher in a new age of the mature and conflicted super hero.

So essentially it's like X-men?
On one level, sorta. But Watchmen has depth that only rarely surfaces in X-Men and its variants, and has teeth.

Essentially, it's about the murder of a retired superhero, and the consequences this murder, and its investigation, has on the other superheroes that used to fight alongside him. However, Moore uses the story to discuss aspects of the Cold War, Thatcherism/Reaganism, the 'role' of vigilantes, moral duty to others, paternalism; all wrapped up in a discussion of the whole superhero genre itself.

And, as SaintB says above, it kick-started the 'modern' era of comics, along with the 'British Invasion' of UK writers working for US publishing houses and helped give graphic novels a tad more respectability in the public image.

So essentially it's like X-men?

Er, no, not really. There are some similarities, but Watchmen is a lot darker and set in something a good deal closer to the real world. The biggest difference, probably, is that Watchmen is not about "superheroes" at all. It's about vigilantes who happen to wear costumes. There are no "good guys" and "bad guys" - and that, in itself, is kinda the point of the story.

The only character that stands out to me is Rorschach, and not in a good way.

Rorschach all the way man. He was the only character with focus in that book. Sure he went about it a bit differently, but he was genuine.

Rorschach all the way man. He was the only character with focus in that book. Sure he went about it a bit differently, but he was genuine.

He had principles, I'll give him that. But the fact that he was going to restart the cold war all over again by revealing Ozymandias' plan even after twenty million people had died says a lot about him. He's just as crazy as Ozymandias, just at the other side of the scale.

In response to DrunkenDove's spoiler:

But don't you think that's the right thing to do? Why allow one man to play god just because he thinks he should?

Because he already HAS. At that point, all Rorschach could do was get millions more people killed just to stop Ozymandias from "getting away with it."

In response to DrunkenDove's spoiler:

But don't you think that's the right thing to do? Why allow one man to play god just because he thinks he should?

At that point it was too late. If you can't prevent the bad (and they really couldn't and not from lack of trying either, they were just thirty-five minutes too late) some would argue that it's better to accept the good result the bad deed did and maybe suffer some moral qualms late at night rather than undo the good result. Otherwise, twenty million people would have died for what? So Rorschach could feel morally superior? I'd place potential saving of millions of lives by ending the cold war was a superior outcome to that.

Oh, it's totally cliche. Except generally, it's a guy doing it to the magically-transformed-from-geek-to-sexy girl. I find it amusing to see the roles reversed. :)

Fair enough. I've never experienced either version. And "magically"? Good gravy, if anyone watching the cheesy teen flicks from the 80s (or wherever this cliché appears) actually believed that huge, plastic-framed glasses (most often without lenses -- Superman, anyone?), and a deliberately unflattering hairdo somehow obscured a pretty face ("let's see what you look like without these..." :rolleyes:) -- well, they're just plain dumb.

No, it dismisses the ridiculous part. The second line answered the only part of the question worth addressing.

So, no answer then. Got it. Next time I'll be sure to run my question past your review board. But please, lightly flamebait me some more if it makes you feel superior.

It's hard to say, really, they all have their own draws. Probably Nite Owl II or Dr. Manhattan. The thing is, aside from Nite Owl II, the characters are all intended and portrayed as idealized hero qualities taken without the balance of the other qualities.

Nite Owl II is really the most human of them, a creature filled with conflicting desires, self-doubts, ambitions and motivations, the other characters do not possess this. On the other hand, Dr. Manhattan is the only character that you can see going through the process of change, but not necessarily in a good way. I kind of got the impression that he only had human "emotions" because he still remembered what it was to be human; as the event of transformation grew more and more distant, he became more and more detached from the memory of humanness while becoming more and more a simple cog of a deterministic and uncaring universe.

Rorschach is punishment without concern, judgment without a care for the context. Ozymandias is utilitarianism taken to a terrifying extreme, complemented with a nice side of narcissism (identification with Alexander the Great). It's funny, actually, that Dr. Manhattan, Rorschach and Ozymandias are all different sides of a dehumanized and decontextualized form of justice and righteousness, even though they seem to the be three characters most entirely at odds with each other.

Silk Specter is kind of in the same boat as Nite Owl II, except perhaps from a female perspective (and with the added depth of a changing social dynamic that goes along with that). Finally, The Comedian is the basest quality of a hero, enjoying what you do; in fact, that seems to be the ONLY reason he did what he did, it was a purely hedonistic impulse and, throughout the series, we see that he is, in many ways, a simple slave to such impulses.

Like I said, of the heroes, Nite Owl and Silk Specter are the only truly human characters, and they also often seem to be the most powerless. Dr. Manhattan is my favorite just because I really see him as the only character who is in a continuous liminal state throughout the story, he is a creature stuck on the threshold between humanity and godhood. But Nite Owl is just a really close runner-up (Silk Specter would be, too, but I happen to have a penis and testicles so, you know, it makes it easier to identify with the Owl). To me, the biggest theme of the story, is the struggle of what are identifiably human characters with human thought and belief structures being caught up in a struggle between other characters that are ultimately beyond human and have a tenacity of resources, belief or righteousness that is unmatchable by an actual person (you know, a big foil for the Cold War and all that).

Because he already HAS. At that point, all Rorschach could do was get millions more people killed just to stop Ozymandias from "getting away with it."

At that point it was too late. If you can't prevent the bad (and they really couldn't and not from lack of trying either, they were just thirty-five minutes too late) some would argue that it's better to accept the good result the bad deed did and maybe suffer some moral qualms late at night rather than undo the good result. Otherwise, twenty million people would have died for what? So Rorschach could feel morally superior? I'd place potential saving of millions of lives by ending the cold war was a superior outcome to that.

Good points. Still doesn't sit well with me though, I guess that's why I identify so well with Rorschach.

So who is going to see it opening night?

Why the hell do you not use "spoiler" tags?
Dude, seriously? for a 23-year old series?

Dude, seriously? for a 23-year old series?

Eh, it's a cult classic, not a huge mainstream thing, that is being made into a huge major motion picture soon to come out. Yes, spoilers would have been courteous, though at this point it doesn't matter.

Dude, seriously? for a 23-year old series?

You, of all people, didn't read the thread?

I've made this point already. The thread title doesn't say anything about the graphic novel. No "spoiler alert" warning for those who might not have been born when it was written, and who are interested in the movie. They might not even know it ever was a graphic novel.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Eh, it's a cult classic, not a huge mainstream thing, that is being made into a huge major motion picture soon to come out. Yes, spoilers would have been courteous, though at this point it doesn't matter.

At this point, this ^.

Awright, I am hardly RAWR! comic book expert, but I bought the series when it first came out... given that it is becoming a major motion picture, that the graphic novel's been around nearly a quarter century, and that this is a thread about the characters, pretty much assumed everyone knew about the series and wasn't just, "oh it looks cool, I wonder what it's about?"

It's like being outraged to find out that at the end of Titanic the ship sinks.

Awright, I am hardly RAWR! comic book expert, but I bought the series when it first came out... given that it is becoming a major motion picture, that the graphic novel's been around nearly a quarter century, and that this is a thread about the characters, pretty much assumed everyone knew about the series and wasn't just, "oh it looks cool, I wonder what it's about?"

Yeah. "Most popular graphic novel EVAR" is kinda like being valedictorian at summer school. Fans will know. Friends of fans will likely have heard of it. Everyone else is either curious or isn't. The fan base is big for comics, but for movies, not remotely.

P.S. -- Kat, why do some spoiler tags work and others don't?

So, no answer then. Got it. Next time I'll be sure to run my question past your review board. But please, lightly flamebait me some more if it makes you feel superior.

You know, if you can't get past the slight rebuke to see the rather obvious and clear answer in the first post I can't help you.

I'll try, because you're so cuddly..."To be honest, I haven't seen anything in the trailers that wasn't a frame from the comic book" means, my sensitive little friend, that NO, it doesn't seem like they've added or changed the focus of anything because EVERYTHING we've seen so far is almost EXACTLY like it is in the comic book, so your assessment seems ill founded and based on a boogeyman that has lost all meaning and is only used when people want to raise a complaint but can't come up with anything else. Clear enough for you? Need a chart and map?

Awright, I am hardly RAWR! comic book expert, but I bought the series when it first came out... given that it is becoming a major motion picture, that the graphic novel's been around nearly a quarter century, and that this is a thread about the characters, pretty much assumed everyone knew about the series and wasn't just, "oh it looks cool, I wonder what it's about?"

It's like being outraged to find out that at the end of Titanic the ship sinks.

Huh? I didn't think anyone was outraged, more like mildly annoyed. It was simply impolite, even if by accident, and it was rightly pointed out.

Anyway, more importantly than that, why won't Chrome open spoilers for me? :(

And, bah, fine...no one respond to my character analysis. I was actually hoping to discuss it. I feel like Watchmen is really the only graphic novel/comic book that even merits analysis of the characters (at least, as far as superhero comics go).

You know, if you can't get past the slight rebuke to see the rather obvious and clear answer in the first post I can't help you.

I'll try, because you're so cuddly..."To be honest, I haven't seen anything in the trailers that wasn't a frame from the comic book" means, my sensitive little friend, that NO, it doesn't seem like they've added or changed the focus of anything because EVERYTHING we've seen so far is almost EXACTLY like it is in the comic book, so your assessment seems ill founded and based on a boogeyman that has lost all meaning and is only used when people want to raise a complaint but can't come up with anything else. Clear enough for you? Need a chart and map?

More flamebait. Thanks.

I'll just point out that "everything we've seen so far" =/= "everything in the film".

Yeah. "Most popular graphic novel EVAR" is kinda like being valedictorian at summer school. Fans will know. Friends of fans will likely have heard of it. Everyone else is either curious or isn't. The fan base is big for comics, but for movies, not remotely.

P.S. -- Kat, why do some spoiler tags work and others don't?
Dunno. TBH, that post was the first time I tried them -- I usually white text something I don't want people to see off the bat.

I did mine [ SPOILER]text[/SPOILER ] (without the spaces before the brackets, of course), if that's any help.

Did you guys know that originally, Alan Moore was going to use the Charlton characters DC acquired -- but given that they paid beaucoup bucks and the heroes would pretty much be destroyed by the story's end, DC told him the story was good but use new characters?

Here's the original line-up:

Dr. Manhattan is a rewrite of Captain Atom
Night Owl is a rewrite of Blue Beetle
Rorschach is a rewrite of The Question
Silk Spectreis a rewrite of Nightshade
The Comedian is a rewrite of The Peacemaker
Oymandias is a rewrite of The Thunderbolt

One wonders why the didn;t just say it was yet another alternate Earth... and whether it would have been terribly different had they gone with the established characters.

Did you guys know that originally, Alan Moore was going to use the Charlton characters DC acquired -- but given that they paid beaucoup bucks and the heroes would pretty much be destroyed by the story's end, DC told him the story was good but use new characters?

Here's the original line-up:

Dr. Manhattan is a rewrite of Captain Atom
Night Owl is a rewrite of Blue Beetle
Rorschach is a rewrite of The Question
Silk Spectreis a rewrite of Nightshade
The Comedian is a rewrite of The Peacemaker
Oymandias is a rewrite of The Thunderbolt

One wonders why the didn;t just say it was yet another alternate Earth... and whether it would have been terribly different had they gone with the established characters.

I'd read that, I also remember reading that he ended up being more pleased with using original characters because it allowed for more flexibility of the narrative. Personally, I'm happy he used new characters that no one had previous conceptions of, I don't think it would have been the masterpiece it was if he had used already established characters.

And did they even have the whole alternate worlds thing going on in comics at that point? I thought that was a phenomenon of the early 90's?

I'd read that, I also remember reading that he ended up being more pleased with using original characters because it allowed for more flexibility of the narrative. Personally, I'm happy he used new characters that no one had previous conceptions of, I don't think it would have been the masterpiece it was if he had used already established characters.

And did they even have the whole alternate worlds thing going on in comics at that point? I thought that was a phenomenon of the early 90's?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_on_Infinite_Earths

Wiki is your friend. DC had Alternate Earths for 55 years -- the 1985 series Crisis on Infinite Earths consolidated most of them.

More flamebait. Thanks.
Get a tissue.

I'll just point out that "everything we've seen so far" =/= "everything in the film".

It's all we have to go on. If you're going to raise a concern, it has to be based on what we've seen so far. What we've seen so far does not give cause for your alarm. Otherwise, I'm concerned, do you thing they'll add a fuzzy wise cracking side kick, you know, for the kids? Like Snarf?

About as founded as your PC Boogeyman.

Awright, can we chill now before it gets unpleasant? And by that I mean I gotta pull out Mjolnir and start acting all moddy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_on_Infinite_Earths

Wiki is your friend. DC had Alternate Earths for 55 years -- the 1985 series Crisis on Infinite Earths consolidated most of them.

I wouldn't have even really known what to search for on Wiki. I'm fairly certain putting in multiple worlds would have given me a distinctly different set of results. =p

I'm still happy he went with original characters. I think the quasi-caricature part of the story ended up being one of the most significant components. I don't really see this having the same impact if he used characters established as "real" heroes (making the caveat here that I know nothing of the characters that almost made it in).

I'll try, because you're so cuddly..."To be honest, I haven't seen anything in the trailers that wasn't a frame from the comic book" means, my sensitive little friend, that NO, it doesn't seem like they've added or changed the focus of anything because EVERYTHING we've seen so far is almost EXACTLY like it is in the comic book...
I believe they've changed the ending

to not involve the squid thing

and

made Ozymandius much more of a conventional baddy

See here (http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/10/19/watchmen-ending-changed/), among other places.

I believe they've changed the ending

to not involve the squid thing

and

made Ozymandius much more of a conventional baddy

See here (http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/10/19/watchmen-ending-changed/), among other places.

I don't really care about the first one of those, but I very much hope the second one isn't true. That moral ambiguity is kinda the whole point, after all.

I believe they've changed the ending

to not involve the squid thing

and

made Ozymandius much more of a conventional baddy

See here (http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/10/19/watchmen-ending-changed/), among other places.

I had overstated myself there a bit because it was apparently too subtle the first time, but yes, I expect that some changes were made to take the twelve issue episodic tale to film. I haven't seen any of the 'side story' of the lost at sea comic and I wasn't sure how they'd pull off the ending in general. But these things are founded on something more than just supposition and random conjecture, which is the difference. I haven't read the article you linked because I intend to experience the film when I see it. I'll root around for 'inside dope' after I've watched it. People like it different ways, that's the way I like it.

The Comedian is a rewrite of The Peacemaker


I always identified him with The Punisher, who along with Batman, is one of the few comic-book heroes to catch my interest.

I believe they've changed the ending

to not involve the squid thing

and

made Ozymandius much more of a conventional baddy

See here (http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/10/19/watchmen-ending-changed/), among other places.

Erm...I hope the second spoiler is incorrect though the first spoiler would make sense. I'd wondered when I first heard the movie was happening how they were going to make that work. In comics, it's alright and not that big of a deal, in cinema it strikes me as potentially being kind of silly looking.

I'm hoping to be surprised but I'm still expecting my love of the graphic novel to be raped and defiled in gruesome ways. Thank the huge sucker punch that was I Am Legend for absolutely obliterating my trust in Hollywood to do justice to great cult classics. =\

I don't really care about the first one of those, but I very much hope the second one isn't true. That moral ambiguity is kinda the whole point, after all.
Aye.

Not that this is conclusive evidence, but this (http://www.watchmencomicmovie.com/photos/030608-ozymandias-big.jpg) piccy begins to confirm the talk I've heard.



I haven't seen any of the 'side story' of the lost at sea comic and I wasn't sure how they'd pull off the ending in general.
I believe the pirate story is being released seperately, perhaps on the watchmen DVD.

Aye.

Not that this is conclusive evidence, but this (http://www.watchmencomicmovie.com/photos/030608-ozymandias-big.jpg) piccy begins to confirm the talk I've heard.

Nah, they darked up all the costumes. Which makes sense if you don't want Watchmen to look like Dick Tracy. Which I don't.

I mean, the spoiler may be true, but the picture doesn't tell you anything except that the design is kind of Snydery.

Stood in firelight, sweltering. Bloodstain on chest like map of violent new continent. Felt cleansed. Felt dark planet turn under my feet and knew what cats know that makes them scream like babies in night. Looked at sky through smoke heavy with human fat and God was not there. The cold, suffocating dark goes on forever and we are alone. Live our lives, lacking anything better to do. Devise reason later. Born from oblivion; bear children, hell-bound as ourselves, go into oblivion. There is nothing else. Existence is random. Has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long. No meaning save what we choose to impose. This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. Streets stank of fire. The void breathed hard on my heart, turning it's illusions to ice, shattering them. Was reborn then, free to scrawl own design on this morally blank world. Was Rorschach. Does that answer your questions, Doctor?


Because he already HAS. At that point, all Rorschach could do was get millions more people killed just to stop Ozymandias from "getting away with it."

At that point it was too late. If you can't prevent the bad (and they really couldn't and not from lack of trying either, they were just thirty-five minutes too late) some would argue that it's better to accept the good result the bad deed did and maybe suffer some moral qualms late at night rather than undo the good result. Otherwise, twenty million people would have died for what? So Rorschach could feel morally superior? I'd place potential saving of millions of lives by ending the cold war was a superior outcome to that.

Not like it really matters anyway. The fact that his name of Ozymandias is a throwback to the ironic poem, coupled with his conversation with Manhattan imply that Adrian's plan was ultimately for nothing.

Why are we using spoiler text for a graphic novel that came out back in the 80s?

http://addisonrd.com/WordPress/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/spoilers.giff

Why are we using spoiler text for a graphic novel that came out back in the 80s?

You've apparently not been paying attention. Nice picture, though you left out 'Sam Jackson crashed the train.'

You've apparently not been paying attention. Nice picture, though you left out 'Sam Jackson crashed the train.'

No, I just noticed the unnecessary use of spoiler tags.

Dr. Manhattan. Why? Because he's the ultimate expression of a man's reason drowning out his emotions.

After that, Ozymandias. Mostly because he points out the dumb nature of the normal serial villain that fails to carry out the evil plan before revealing the evil plan.

I'll just point out that "everything we've seen so far" =/= "everything in the film".

There is a part of the preview showing a blue beam cutting through the tops of buildings in New York. Let us remember that the film alters the ending significantly, albeit, not drastically.

Ozymandias. Because he is the only one who truly stepped beyond the paradigm; all of the others, no matter how they changed over the years, stayed inside the box of "superbeing/maskedman". Adrian was the only one who could become something else.

what the hell is that stupid thing supposed to be about anyway?

if its just a bunch of mundane twits trying to kill each other, why should i even care?

if its a bunch of humans in tights and capes, they're still a bunch of twits.

Ozymandias. Because he is the only one who truly stepped beyond the paradigm; all of the others, no matter how they changed over the years, stayed inside the box of "superbeing/maskedman". Adrian was the only one who could become something else.

Wrong. Rorschach was only Kovacs then. Kovacs pretending to be Rorschach. Being Rorschach takes a kind of insight. All Kovacs ever was was a masked man. All he could ever be.

what the hell is that stupid thing supposed to be about anyway?

if its just a bunch of mundane twits trying to kill each other, why should i even care?

if its a bunch of humans in tights and capes, they're still a bunch of twits.

Try reading the book/comic/graphic novel before you make a judgement. It's not that simple.

Wrong. Rorschach was only Kovacs then. Kovacs pretending to be Rorschach. Being Rorschach takes a kind of insight. All Kovacs ever was was a masked man. All he could ever be.

I'm not sure I understand you. Kovacs remained what he was - a masked man. That's what I was saying. Only Ozymandias grew beyond that paradigm (to either "supervillain" or "visionary" depending on your point of view).

I'm not sure I understand you. Kovacs remained what he was - a masked man. That's what I was saying. Only Ozymandias grew beyond that paradigm (to either "supervillain" or "visionary" depending on your point of view).

No. Before Kovacs, was just a masked man. After the incident, he became a complete psycho in a mask, a serial killer in a mask, not a hero, or just a man.

I'm not sure I understand you. Kovacs remained what he was - a masked man. That's what I was saying. Only Ozymandias grew beyond that paradigm (to either "supervillain" or "visionary" depending on your point of view).
The tragedy of Kovacs was that he "became" the mask. He lost all sense of himself and his own humanity, and by the time he reaches the present day he is just a mad dog on a weak leash.

No. Before Kovacs, was just a masked man. After the incident, he became a complete psycho in a mask, a serial killer in a mask, not a hero, or just a man.

Oh, I see. Yes, it could be argued that Rorschach became something other than what he once was.

But I'm not sure I entirely buy it. I see him more as the darker twin of The Comedian - both men on a singular road, and willing to follow that road to it's ultimate conclusion. Even should it destroy them, they cannot truly change. Rorschach merely became more Rorschach - the man behind the mask was what was lost.

In fact, that was one of the subtexts I got from Watchmen - that only the person who stepped off the trodden path - Ozymandias - could affect real change.

The tragedy of Kovacs was that he "became" the mask. He lost all sense of himself and his own humanity, and by the time he reaches the present day he is just a mad dog on a weak leash.
Mmm. I wouldn't quite agree. A mad dog would suggest that he is just lashing out, which he isn't. He's trying to make the world conform to his set of morals, one death at a time. Also, don't you remember the reunion scene between Rorscach and Nite Owl? It's clear he hasn't lost all of his humanity. And don't forget the part where he doesn't kill someone (A first :D), his landlady, because of her children.

what the hell is that stupid thing supposed to be about anyway?

if its just a bunch of mundane twits trying to kill each other, why should i even care?

if its a bunch of humans in tights and capes, they're still a bunch of twits.
Trolling from ignorance is still trolling, so la to that.
Oh, I see. Yes, it could be argued that Rorschach became something other than what he once was.

But I'm not sure I entirely buy it. I see him more as the darker twin of The Comedian - both men on a singular road, and willing to follow that road to it's ultimate conclusion. Even should it destroy them, they cannot truly change. Rorschach merely became more Rorschach - the man behind the mask was what was lost.

In fact, that was one of the subtexts I got from Watchmen - that only the person who stepped off the trodden path - Ozymandias - could affect real change.
Keep in mind that Rorschach had no question as to the right action, he was never at a loss because of moral ambiguity and lived in a world of black and white. The Comedian, as evidenced by how he ended up dead, obviously did live in a more morally multichromatic world.

Also, I still stand by my statement that Dr. Manhattan experienced the most change, and I don't just mean his transformation, throughout the story, it just happened at a steady and constant pace, while Ozymandias' happened sometime prior to the narrative and, possibly, all at once.

Trolling from ignorance is still trolling, so la to that.

Keep in mind that Rorschach had no question as to the right action, he was never at a loss because of moral ambiguity and lived in a world of black and white. The Comedian, as evidenced by how he ended up dead, obviously did live in a more morally multichromatic world.

Also, I still stand by my statement that Dr. Manhattan experienced the most change, and I don't just mean his transformation, throughout the story, it just happened at a steady and constant pace, while Ozymandias' happened sometime prior to the narrative and, possibly, all at once.

It's one of the things that makes Rorschach a tragic figure - he literally cannot act outside of his nature. The Comedian, on the other hand, saw full well the spectrum of his choices, and walked to his end with eyes wide open.

I entirely agree that Manhattan has the most change. How can it be otherwise? He has literally become something far more than merely human, something so much more that it takes him forty years to sort through his own thoughts on the matter.

But Manhattan's change is linear. Everything he does, everything he is, is present the moment he returns to "human" form - it just takes much of a century to play out.

Ozymandias is the only one willing to deviate from the straight line and make a truly different choice.

You've apparently not been paying attention. Nice picture, though you left out 'Sam Jackson crashed the train.'

Hehe. I've seen that before on a t-shirt and I don't get the "His mother was part of his personality" reference. Anyone want to help me out?

Keep in mind that Rorschach had no question as to the right action, he was never at a loss because of moral ambiguity and lived in a world of black and white.
"He says (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD7EKZ32ODQ), 'There is black and there is white, and there is wrong, and there is right, and there is nothing, nothing in between.'"

I entirely agree that Manhattan has the most change. How can it be otherwise? He has literally become something far more than merely human, something so much more that it takes him forty years to sort through his own thoughts on the matter.

But Manhattan's change is linear. Everything he does, everything he is, is present the moment he returns to "human" form - it just takes much of a century to play out.

Ozymandias is the only one willing to deviate from the straight line and make a truly different choice.

I'll give you that Manhattan's change is linear, but it is the most drastic, and I'm not just talking about going for science research geek to blue demigod. You literally see him forget how to be human and all that entails as the story winds on.

Ozymandias is deviant, yes, but he doesn't actually deviate in the story. He begins and ends as he is, from what we see. What is striking about him is that he actually maintains his ethical framework to its final conclusion, in much the same way Rorschach does but in a different direction. The two operate under wholly different moral imperatives, but they are locked within them, nonetheless.

Hehe. I've seen that before on a t-shirt and I don't get the "His mother was part of his personality" reference. Anyone want to help me out?

Psycho, no?

Hehe. I've seen that before on a t-shirt and I don't get the "His mother was part of his personality" reference. Anyone want to help me out?

It's from Psycho. Norman Bates spends the entire movie talking to his mother, who you never see, and in the end of the film, it's revealed that Norman has killed his mother and is dressing and acting like her. Norman Bates is supposed to be based partly on Ed Gein.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_on_Infinite_Earths

Wiki is your friend. DC had Alternate Earths for 55 years -- the 1985 series Crisis on Infinite Earths consolidated most of them.

Another similar story was released in 1987: Wild Cards is a shared-world-superheroes-are-human mosaic novel series. That series is another excellent look at the dark side of the whole subject. I highly recommend it (at least the first 6 or so).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_Cards#Original_series_.28Bantam_Books.29

Ozymandias all the may, man. I love his style, his complex morality, his bullet-catching ability. He is a tower awesomeness.

I liked The Comedian. He truly was the best out of them. He understood. He knew. And he didn't care.

Psycho, no?It's from Psycho. Norman Bates spends the entire movie talking to his mother, who you never see, and in the end of the film, it's revealed that Norman has killed his mother and is dressing and acting like her. Norman Bates is supposed to be based partly on Ed Gein.

Ah. Cheers guys.