Beware the Watchmen

[SnakeoilSage]

Are you referring to the film here, or have you actually read the comic? The Tales of the Black Freighter is basically a symbolist mirror held up to Rorschach, showing his descent into mental problems, despite his own feeling that he's doing the right thing. He has become a monster fighting the very corruption that has plagued the world in which he lives. The same can be said for the unfortunate survivor, who turns savage to survive. Had he not done what he did, he would have suffered the same fate as the rest of the crew.

Rorschach doesn't descend into savagery, he was breaking fingers in taverns long before the case with the dead girl. He starts out mentally imbalanced, the abused and neglected son of a prostitute. He refuses to compromise, and says so himself, so when he kills the man who killed the girl, its when he realizes he will not compromise justice by giving him over to a court system that will fail said justice.

The main plot does a pretty unsubtle job of pointing out how America, and civilization in general go from civil to savage in the name of survival. There's plenty of symbolism without falling on an unrelated pirate story, you can tear it out of the comic and not miss a thing, so again: pointless filler.

I wouldn't call things like off the cuff remarks, such as "Big figure. Small world." badass, but I would say that, neither would I say that they are schizo one liners. Rorschach is not schizophrenic - he's sociopathic, not caring what society at large thinks of him and reinforcing this, by acting to alienate himself from society.

I'd say that it's deep and you've missed some of the meanings there. Of course, it could just be that you've got an opinion on it and you don't have to agree that it's either a good book or film. For me, the genius in the writing is the filler material, between the chapters - the psych reports, the newspaper cuttings and so forth, that add so much depth to a comic, which could have been viewed as a pretty flat piece otherwise.

I've got other graphic novels in my library, but none of them come close to this.

I didn't miss any meaning, because not only is the symbolism unsubtle but the book goes out of its way to point it out to you. And if you're getting your "genius" opinion from the filler, from the stuff that's not included in the main plot, then Alan Moore is telling, not showing, and breaking one of the basic rules of good writing.

Yeah, this is just my opinion, but it's an educated one. It has some interesting, even provocative ideas, but the story goes out of its way to emphasize its symbolism, so it feels more like I'm being patronized than enlightened, and let's face it, the story is outdated, its fears and concerns based on the same empty-headed jingoistic paranoia that made the Cold War the ridiculous global shithole that it was.

if you thought that was pointless than the whole of the book was wasted on you.

And what was the point of the book? That nuking New York is preferable to nuking everything else? That to be a hero you have to be a villain? That ultimately humans are savages? That pirate stories are just as relevant today as they were... never?

I'm tired of explaining my opinion on it. You've already decided what your opinion is and neither of us is going to convince the other. Accept it.

 

[A Weary Exile]

I love Watchmen, both the film and the novel, and I can't wait for this to be released. I don't see it doing any serious damage to the lore. *shrug*

 

[Steve Butts]

Yeah, this is just my opinion, but it's an educated one. It has some interesting, even provocative ideas, but the story goes out of its way to emphasize its symbolism, so it feels more like I'm being patronized than enlightened, and let's face it, the story is outdated, its fears and concerns based on the same empty-headed jingoistic paranoia that made the Cold War the ridiculous global shithole that it was.

It's almost as bad as basing Citizen Kane on a guy who runs a newspaper. I mean, do people even read those anymore? And don't get me started on Casablanca using Nazis as the villains. That was 70 years ago, Hollywood! Get with the times!

It baffles me that some people have such a hard time understanding that these comics have a specific context. I don't think you get to claim you have an educated opinion, and then totally disregard the circumstances that spawned the series in the first place.

I admit there are reasons not to like Watchmen, although in doing so you're swimming against the current of popular and critical opinion for the last twenty-five years. Still, the series just doesn't do it for some people. Whether they don't get it at all, or get it but just don't like it, they will always see it as pretentious and heavy-handed.

 

[Caligulove]

This shares the same problem as the Star Wars prequels.

Most of the stuff they allude to in Watchmen from all of the character's pasts aren't that interesting to me. I don't want to see the world where they were all ordinary masked heroes, going about their crime-fighting ways. Whatever they come up with will most likely not be as interesting as the fans would hope it would be.

Same thing goes for the Star Wars prequels, or hell, even the recent excursion into explaining what happened to Revan after KotOR and his part in The Old Republic were all a let-down.

 

[Coop83]

Are you referring to the film here, or have you actually read the comic? The Tales of the Black Freighter is basically a symbolist mirror held up to Rorschach, showing his descent into mental problems, despite his own feeling that he's doing the right thing. He has become a monster fighting the very corruption that has plagued the world in which he lives. The same can be said for the unfortunate survivor, who turns savage to survive. Had he not done what he did, he would have suffered the same fate as the rest of the crew.

Rorschach doesn't descend into savagery, he was breaking fingers in taverns long before the case with the dead girl. He starts out mentally imbalanced, the abused and neglected son of a prostitute. He refuses to compromise, and says so himself, so when he kills the man who killed the girl, its when he realizes he will not compromise justice by giving him over to a court system that will fail said justice.

Psychologically speaking, no-one starts out mentally imbalanced. Sure, this guy had a tough upbringing and various factors within the plot show his descent. I was referring to the survivor on the freighter, who descends slowly.

The main plot does a pretty unsubtle job of pointing out how America, and civilization in general go from civil to savage in the name of survival. There's plenty of symbolism without falling on an unrelated pirate story, you can tear it out of the comic and not miss a thing, so again: pointless filler.

The comic book is far from pointless filler. It's cleverly worked and yes, to MENSA members like yourself, you didn't need it. Fair enough, don't read the book, don't watch the film and don't pay money to bloat the wallet of those unworth of your money.

I wouldn't call things like off the cuff remarks, such as "Big figure. Small world." badass, but I would say that, neither would I say that they are schizo one liners. Rorschach is not schizophrenic - he's sociopathic, not caring what society at large thinks of him and reinforcing this, by acting to alienate himself from society.

I'd say that it's deep and you've missed some of the meanings there. Of course, it could just be that you've got an opinion on it and you don't have to agree that it's either a good book or film. For me, the genius in the writing is the filler material, between the chapters - the psych reports, the newspaper cuttings and so forth, that add so much depth to a comic, which could have been viewed as a pretty flat piece otherwise.

I've got other graphic novels in my library, but none of them come close to this.

I didn't miss any meaning, because not only is the symbolism unsubtle but the book goes out of its way to point it out to you. And if you're getting your "genius" opinion from the filler, from the stuff that's not included in the main plot, then Alan Moore is telling, not showing, and breaking one of the basic rules of good writing.[/quote]

Which basic rule would that be? Don't treat your audience like idiots? The Sun here in the UK does that every day and they seem to sell a lot of papers...

Yeah, this is just my opinion, but it's an educated one. It has some interesting, even provocative ideas, but the story goes out of its way to emphasize its symbolism, so it feels more like I'm being patronized than enlightened, and let's face it, the story is outdated, its fears and concerns based on the same empty-headed jingoistic paranoia that made the Cold War the ridiculous global shithole that it was.

I was lucky enough not to live through a Nixon Presidency, though I did live through the last few years of the Soviet Union. Tensions between the Russians and the Americans were that bad and this particular comic doesn't poke fun at the fact, nor does it do too much, to make it seem like either side was too heavy handed - they were both as bad as one another. I feel that they got the balance right and the critical acclaim of people who knew more about that situation than I seems to indicate so as well.

I admit there are reasons not to like Watchmen, although in doing so you're swimming against the current of popular and critical opinion for the last twenty-five years. Still, the series just doesn't do it for some people. Whether they don't get it at all, or get it but just don't like it, they will always see it as pretentious and heavy-handed.

It's like my opinion on Shakespeare. His work will take some beating and regardless of what I think, it will never get taken out of the syllabus for schools in the UK*. It's got to be good, because it remains popular.

*For a point of SnakeoilSage, I would never suggest replacing Shakespeare with Watchmen - better literary works have been made that deserve credit first.

 

[SnakeoilSage]

It's almost as bad as basing Citizen Kane on a guy who runs a newspaper. I mean, do people even read those anymore? And don't get me started on Casablanca using Nazis as the villains. That was 70 years ago, Hollywood! Get with the times!

It baffles me that some people have such a hard time understanding that these comics have a specific context. I don't think you get to claim you have an educated opinion, and then totally disregard the circumstances that spawned the series in the first place.

I admit there are reasons not to like Watchmen, although in doing so you're swimming against the current of popular and critical opinion for the last twenty-five years. Still, the series just doesn't do it for some people. Whether they don't get it at all, or get it but just don't like it, they will always see it as pretentious and heavy-handed.

So because it's popular I have to like it? Because it's popular and I don't like it, I'm automatically "missing the point" or just looking to wag my smugness at people?

You know Citizen Kane is based in part on the life of William Randolph Hearst, and you can draw parallels with Rupert Murdoch and Fox News, for the way they abuse their power through yellow journalism. Casablanca is a timeless, tragic love story that you could transplant to the American Civil War or Communist China, and the tale and its sadness would be just as poignant.

Watchmen couldn't exist without the Cold War. It couldn't exist without the mistakes of the Cold War taken to extremes that we as human beings managed to avoid (barely) despite our own darker traits. Even the portrayal of Nixon in Watchmen is a weird and historically inaccurate: Nixon was the man who ceased actions in Nam, went to China, initiated détente and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Wars on cancer and drugs, imposed wage and price controls, enforced desegregation of Southern schools and established the Environmental Protection Agency. Though he presided over Apollo 11, he scaled back manned space exploration. He was reelected by a landslide in 1972. I'm getting this all from Wikipedia, so look it up. The fact that he resigned is proof that he did wrong, but his presidential term isn't riddled with the insanity that seems to have sparked the grim, nihilistic world of Watchmen.

Look, I don't like Watchmen and I've explained why. Just deal with it.

 

[idodo35]

well these are rather good creators so i doubt it will suck...
now before you call me an heratic and burn me alive im a big fan of watchmen but lets face it this has a good chance of being good... not as good as the original but good
anyhow if it does end up be really good i vow here that ill go once a week to the comics shop to buy my weekly comics in a full rorsach costume (thats a 20 minuite bus ride+ 10 minuites walk btw...)! (maybie ill even have someone record me and upload it on youtube )

 

[RA92]

Moore is a huge dink and it's just lucky for him that his shitty attitude and penchant for histrionics doesn't detract from his writing ability.

Also I think this [http://www.comicbookmovie.com/comics/news/?a=53928] is spot on.

Yeah, Moore is a talented writer... but he's also kind of a smug, elitist asshole.

Alan Moore's words on Before Watchmen: "I tend to take this latest development as a kind of eager confirmation that they are still apparently dependent on ideas that I had 25 years ago." In other interviews he described the prequels as "completely shameless". He's not making outright insults (unlike you guys). I don't see someone being an asshole here - just having an opinion. Just as DC has every right to do whatever they want with their franchise because they own it, Moore has every right to his opinion. And if being opinionated about your own creation gets you branded a dick these days, well...

 

[RA92]

Watchmen couldn't exist without the Cold War.

Except for the bit where Watchmen is a deconstruction of the entire superhero genre.

 

[Zom-B]

Moore is a huge dink and it's just lucky for him that his shitty attitude and penchant for histrionics doesn't detract from his writing ability.

Also I think this [http://www.comicbookmovie.com/comics/news/?a=53928] is spot on.

Yeah, Moore is a talented writer... but he's also kind of a smug, elitist asshole.

Alan Moore's words on Before Watchmen: "I tend to take this latest development as a kind of eager confirmation that they are still apparently dependent on ideas that I had 25 years ago." In other interviews he described the prequels as "completely shameless". He's not making outright insults (unlike you guys). I don't see someone being an asshole here - just having an opinion. Just as DC has every right to do whatever they want with their franchise because they own it, Moore has every right to his opinion. And if being opinionated about your own creation gets you branded a dick these days, well...

Maybe we exaggerate somewhat with our choice of words, but Alan Moore's attitudes, snarky opinions and caustic comments about the comics industry most notably are well documented. The man is bitter and jaded and rarely has anything nice to say. Is he an "asshole"? Maybe not. Is he sometimes smug? Sure. Does he make a big deal, i.e. histrionics, about things like Before Watchmen? He sure does. This is not a new phenomenon and Moore has the reputation he does for a reason. It didn't just pop out of a vaccum.

The other things Moore has to say about comics aren't quite so polite as that quote. This is a guy that basically says all comics are shit, but at the same time admits that he doesn't actually read comics:

"I haven?t read a comic in years but I?ve not been tempted to. Other than those by friends and loved ones I?ve not seen anything that has made me want to pick up a comic book. It looks like it?s stuck in the late eighties and early nineties and its just going to be a cycle of that material. So I tend to suspect that it was probably only me and, and a number of collaborators. who were actually interested in pushing things forward."

From this link: http://www.bleedingcool.com/2010/07/06/alan-moore-says-goodbye-to-comics-again/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BleedingCool+%28Bleeding+Cool+Comic+News+%26+Rumors%29

How can he judge an entire industry without reading anything it creates? And it was probably "only him" and some people that worked with him that were interested in "pushing things forward". Well Christ, what will we ever do without the great Alan Moore?

 

[SnakeoilSage]

Watchmen couldn't exist without the Cold War.

Except for the bit where Watchmen is a deconstruction of the entire superhero genre.

And that makes it good because..?

Technically, Kick Ass is a deconstruction of the superhero genre, too.

 

[RA92]

Watchmen couldn't exist without the Cold War.

Except for the bit where Watchmen is a deconstruction of the entire superhero genre.

And that makes it good because..?

Technically, Kick Ass is a deconstruction of the superhero genre, too.

No, my point is Watchmen didn't solely revolve around the Cold War. The war provided the setting, and I can't see how it's impossible to have a Watchmen-esque narrative in some timeline/conflict other than the Cold War. Thus my issue with your statement that without the Cold War, the Watchmen is irrelevant.

[From Wikipedia] The series was an "obituary for the concept of heroes in general and superheroes in particular." Moore added that to place faith in such icons was to give up personal responsibility to "the Reagans, Thatchers, and other 'Watchmen' of the world who supposed to 'rescue' us and perhaps lay waste to the planet in the process".

I see you defending Nixon for stopping the war in Vietnam, but he didn't do that before dropping more bombs in Cambodia than the Allied Forces did in WWII. You defend Nixon for starting peace talks with China; but to do that he had to keep an open channel through Pakistan - and to keep the Pakistani dictator happy, Nixon funded their genocide against Bangladesh back in '71.

Obviously, Nixon and Kissinger felt they were necessary evils for long term stability. As does probably Cheney and Obama about a decade long war in the Middle East with millions of civilian casualties. Are their actions justified? Was Ozymandias' actions justified? Issues like that have never stopped being irrelevant. And this is just one character.

Thus my issue with your statement: "Watchmen couldn't exist without the Cold War. It couldn't exist without the mistakes of the Cold War taken to extremes that we as human beings managed to avoid (barely) despite our own darker traits." It was never about whether you like it or not (which is entirely up to you).

 

[SnakeoilSage]

No, my point is Watchmen didn't solely revolve around the Cold War. The war provided the setting, and I can't see how it's impossible to have a Watchmen-esque narrative in some timeline/conflict other than the Cold War. Thus my issue with your statement that without the Cold War, the Watchmen is irrelevant.

[From Wikipedia] The series was an "obituary for the concept of heroes in general and superheroes in particular." Moore added that to place faith in such icons was to give up personal responsibility to "the Reagans, Thatchers, and other 'Watchmen' of the world who supposed to 'rescue' us and perhaps lay waste to the planet in the process".

I see you defending Nixon for stopping the war in Vietnam, but he didn't do that before dropping more bombs in Cambodia than the Allied Forces did in WWII. You defend Nixon for starting peace talks with China; but to do that he had to keep an open channel through Pakistan - and to keep the Pakistani dictator happy, Nixon funded their genocide against Bangladesh back in '71.

Obviously, Nixon and Kissinger felt they were necessary evils for long term stability. As does probably Cheney and Obama about a decade long war in the Middle East with millions of civilian casualties. Are their actions justified? Was Ozymandias' actions justified? Issues like that have never stopped being irrelevant. And this is just one character.

Thus my issue with your statement: "Watchmen couldn't exist without the Cold War. It couldn't exist without the mistakes of the Cold War taken to extremes that we as human beings managed to avoid (barely) despite our own darker traits." It was never about whether you like it or not (which is entirely up to you).

Until Iran actually gets a nuke and somehow threatens total global extinction with it, you're not making a very valid case for Watchmen being able to exist outside of a bizarro world were Nixon is a Greg Stillson-esque president and the existence of superheroes has escalated the Cold War.

 

[RA92]

Until Iran actually gets a nuke and somehow threatens total global extinction with it, you're not making a very valid case for Watchmen being able to exist outside of a bizarro world were Nixon is a Greg Stillson-esque president and the existence of superheroes has escalated the Cold War.

Sure, because superhero-sized egos and delusional goals can't be portrayed without nukes. *rolls eyes*

 

[SnakeoilSage]

Until Iran actually gets a nuke and somehow threatens total global extinction with it, you're not making a very valid case for Watchmen being able to exist outside of a bizarro world were Nixon is a Greg Stillson-esque president and the existence of superheroes has escalated the Cold War.

Sure, because superhero-sized egos and delusional goals can't be portrayed without nukes. *rolls eyes*

They can, and that's the problem. Watchmen doesn't work without the bombs dropping. Kick Ass deconstructed the superhero genre much better than Watchmen. And hey, no nukes. Not one.

The impact of Watchmen is lessened when you realize how much it relies on contrived circumstances to make itself work.

 

[RA92]

They can, and that's the problem. Watchmen doesn't work without the bombs dropping. Kick Ass deconstructed the superhero genre much better than Watchmen. And hey, no nukes. Not one.

The impact of Watchmen is lessened when you realize how much it relies on contrived circumstances to make itself work.

It's kind of curious how you're fixated with the Cold War/Nixon facet of the story. I just told you in a previous comment how Ozymandias' actions can be an allegory for the ones of Cheney/Obama. And the conflicts of the rest of the heroes were on a personal level.

You're looking too much in the literal narrative, instead of the allegories it stands for.

 

[SnakeoilSage]

It's kind of curious how you're fixated with the Cold War/Nixon facet of the story. I just told you in a previous comment how Ozymandias' actions can be an allegory for the ones of Cheney/Obama. And the conflicts of the rest of the heroes were on a personal level.

You're looking too much in the literal narrative, instead of the allegories it stands for.

Yes, it is curious how I seem fixated on the Cold War/Nixon facet; it's almost like you've been aruging about it with me all day.

I feel that Watchmen is contrived, padded with an unecessary secondary plot that has only symbolic connections to the main plot, and in the end, as Dr. Manhattan states, "nothing ever end:" doomsday isn't averted, just delayed. The people aren't enlightened above their destructive path, only manipulated and lied to. And its implied that not only will Ozymandias' artificial peace be short-lived, but the impending backlash will likely be worse than the war he tried to avert, making everything we've read up until now completely pointless.

 

[RA92]

I feel that Watchmen is contrived, padded with an unecessary secondary plot that has only symbolic connections to the main plot, and in the end, as Dr. Manhattan states, "nothing ever end:" doomsday isn't averted, just delayed. The people aren't enlightened above their destructive path, only manipulated and lied to. And its implied that not only will Ozymandias' artificial peace be short-lived, but the impending backlash will likely be worse than the war he tried to avert, making everything we've read up until now completely pointless.

And that's exactly how the real world is.

 

[SnakeoilSage]

And that's exactly how the real world is.

No, it really isn't.

 

[Darth_pipsqueak]

Wasn't the comic basically told through flashbacks most of the time anyway? Why would prequels matter. Also, i didn't read this comic as a story about retired superheroes coming back in action, i read this story about some lunatics dressing up in costumes and shaping a world nobody wants to live in. The comedian is an alcoholic psychopath with little humanity left. Night owl is a sexually frustrated sociopath who can only have sex, while in costume. Rorshach has no humanity left what so ever, and he's basically the worst parts of Batman (y'know the facist, right wing part) Gone insane, kind of symbolising the only thing the city deserves. And Silk Spectre is a dissillusioned teenager inside a thirty year old's body trying to cope with the fact that her mother was a goddamn psycho, respectably. The movie for me accomplished all of those things, but i will say that the ultimate cut is my favorite, not because it's more like the books, but because we see more of the pre-Suckerpunch Zach Snyder taking liberties with the story and GETTING AWAY WITH IT.