What I think is actually that there is no villain. I'm not suggesting that Veidt's actions aren't questionable, its that I think the point in Watchmen is that EVERYONE'S actions are questionable.

So its not that I'm complaining about criticism of Veidt, its that I think characterizing Veidt as the "villain" of the story in the sense of being the one who was wrong, and one of the others (rorschach, in some people's views) was "right", is what I think is overly simplistic and naive.

RPGPundit

Veidt is the "villain" in that Hollywood needs to sell a villain character in a superhero movie.  I agree that in the Watchmen, everyone's actions are questionable.  Which is what makes it interesting.

Quote from: RPGPundit;288648What I think is actually that there is no villain. I'm not suggesting that Veidt's actions aren't questionable, its that I think the point in Watchmen is that EVERYONE'S actions are questionable.

So its not that I'm complaining about criticism of Veidt, its that I think characterizing Veidt as the "villain" of the story in the sense of being the one who was wrong, and one of the others (rorschach, in some people's views) was "right", is what I think is overly simplistic and naive.

RPGPundit

Sorry, I misunderstood your position. Yes, I can agree with this.

I have yet to see the movie, many of my friends have told me it was terrible and completely missed the point of the original novel.  I have no opinion either way, having not seen the film.

I agree that there is no "Villain" in the story, and that the moral ambiguity of the "heroes" is the telling thing.  I think Rorschach does represent a decandent moral "good" in the sense that he represents the "hero" society wants: a fascist psychopath boogeyman who will kill "evil people" indiscriminitely and with great force.  Society wants someone like Rorschach, whereas society needs someone like Ozymandias.

I felt that the destruction of Rorschach represented the destruction of the old paradigm of good and evil, one which is short sighted and shallow, versus Ozymandias' pyrrhic vision of world peace, in which the hard decision is made to fake an alien invasion to save the world from destruction.

Just my two cents...since I don't think you really can be wrong when you're discussing literature at this level.

Quote from: joewolz;288752I agree that there is no "Villain" in the story, and that the moral ambiguity of the "heroes" is the telling thing.  I think Rorschach does represent a decandent moral "good" in the sense that he represents the "hero" society wants: a fascist psychopath boogeyman who will kill "evil people" indiscriminitely and with great force.  Society wants someone like Rorschach, whereas society needs someone like Ozymandias.

I felt that the destruction of Rorschach represented the destruction of the old paradigm of good and evil, one which is short sighted and shallow, versus Ozymandias' pyrrhic vision of world peace, in which the hard decision is made to fake an alien invasion to save the world from destruction.

I'd mostly agree with this.  However, I don't think that the term "villain" is solely reserved for stories with simplistic black-and-white morality.  There are a number of villains in film and comics who intend to do good through evil means, and even who have a point.  For example, Batman's foe Ra's al Ghul believes he is working in the world's best interest -- and he is often shown to have a point.  In Batman Begins, al Ghul was portrayed as having essentially invented everything that Batman is, but Batman turned against him not for using essentially terror to improve society -- but when he felt that he had gone too far.  Similarly, in many action films, a terrorist will be fighting for genuinely oppressed people.  

I think the key difference of The Watchmen is not that the antagonist intends to do good or that he has a good cause in mind with his horrendous plan, but that he succeeds.  That is itself a vital difference, and it does make the story interesting.

That and when people say 'Villian' they probably mean 'Antagonist' but can't be bothered to use the correct term.  

No moral judgement there. Rorschach is a protagonist, like him or not and Ozymandias is an Antagonist given the POV of the story and the reader/viewer.  Agree or disagree with their relative merits as characters doesn't change their roles.

Given that you (Pundit) are a fan of the term Protagonism I'm surprised you didn't key to that faster.

Spike is right in that BOTH versions of the story start off focusing and following a character who is investigating a crime scene. In traditional terms that would make Rorshach the protagonist and whoever mudered Blake/The Comedian would be the antagonist.

Rorshach does wear the hat and trenchcoat of a typical private eye type character.  If you look at it that way - then the whole story is four-color film noir and over-the-top.


- Ed C.

Quote from: jhkim;288852I'd mostly agree with this.  However, I don't think that the term "villain" is solely reserved for stories with simplistic black-and-white morality.  There are a number of villains in film and comics who intend to do good through evil means, and even who have a point.  For example, Batman's foe Ra's al Ghul believes he is working in the world's best interest -- and he is often shown to have a point.  In Batman Begins, al Ghul was portrayed as having essentially invented everything that Batman is, but Batman turned against him not for using essentially terror to improve society -- but when he felt that he had gone too far.  Similarly, in many action films, a terrorist will be fighting for genuinely oppressed people.  

I think the key difference of The Watchmen is not that the antagonist intends to do good or that he has a good cause in mind with his horrendous plan, but that he succeeds.  That is itself a vital difference, and it does make the story interesting.

The point I was really trying to argue with you is that I think that the difference between Ozymandias and Al Ghul, or say Lex Luthor, is that the latter two make claims that they're trying to save or benefit mankind, but clearly want to dominate the world and control humanity.

I just don't see that in Veidt. Clearly, from your earlier posts, you do seem to see that in him; but I think you can only infer that, which comes down to different interpretations of the story. I think that unlike those other DC characters who are very definitely villains, Veidt really means it when he wants to save humanity, and that's what makes the moral dilemma so freaking intense. It would have been another story altogether if it was clear that Ozymandias was just another powermonger a la Lex Luthor or Ras Al Ghul.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Spike;288870That and when people say 'Villian' they probably mean 'Antagonist' but can't be bothered to use the correct term.  

No moral judgement there. Rorschach is a protagonist, like him or not and Ozymandias is an Antagonist given the POV of the story and the reader/viewer.  Agree or disagree with their relative merits as characters doesn't change their roles.

Given that you (Pundit) are a fan of the term Protagonism I'm surprised you didn't key to that faster.

But I did key to that. In the very first post of this thread. I said explicitly that I can accept that rorschach is the literary "protagonist" and thus Veidt the literary "antagonist". That isn't the same as saying he's a villain, and Rorschach a "hero".

RPGPundit

Oops. I missed that line when I posted. Must remember to reread the OP before I post next tim. (yes, I said Tim... )

You do acknowledge it, but then you essentially dismiss it because 'the masses' don't talk in those terms but rely on more conversational terms like hero and villian, good guy and bad guy. Never mind that, if I recall, a villain is a peasant...

Quote from: RPGPundit;288895The point I was really trying to argue with you is that I think that the difference between Ozymandias and Al Ghul, or say Lex Luthor, is that the latter two make claims that they're trying to save or benefit mankind, but clearly want to dominate the world and control humanity.

Well, both of these are characters who have been portrayed hundreds of times by dozens of different authors -- and our different readings of a particular portrayal, such as Al Ghul in Batman Begins, are probably influenced by how we've seen the character elsewhere.  

I have often seen Al Ghul portrayed as an extremely principled man, who respects Batman and is respected in return.  A notable example is that he consistently is shown as knowing Batman's secret identity as Bruce Wayne, but doesn't reveal it or attempt to blackmail him.  He genuinely believes that the greatest good for the world as a whole is served by the death of many.  

He is quite different from Veidt -- and is sometimes portrayed as being driven insane by the Lazarus Pits -- but when sane, he is often portrayed as genuinely believing in his cause rather than power-mongering.  (I don't think this is true of Lex Luthor, by contrast.)

Strangely enough the story, for me, is more about Dreiberg's renewal than anything else. His struggle with himself is really absorbing and strangely uplifting, given the context.
I saw the film on Thursday, and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

What some people are missing is that Rorschach doesn't really give a crap about ends, off all of the characters he's probably the one that cares the least about the sort of utilitarian calculus that Ozy's actions are based on, which is why he has to die in the end.

Rorschach just wants to destroy people he sees as evil and the comic/movie does a good job of showing how myopic that view of things can be. What the comic/movie does a good job as showing is what however much we might fantasize about someone like Rorschach (a badass who's damn cool and doesn't let anything get in his way of getting rid of the bad guys) it also shows why it is very very bad to have people like Rorschach running around in the real world (real Rorschach are twisted psychotic freaks). Rorschach's such a great character because he captures both the fantasy (he's damn cool) and the reality (he's barking mad).

There is 1 frame in the comic if I recall that outline Veidt as the villain. When he learns of he sucess in New York he lifts his arms exultantly in the air and shouts 'I did it'. I think this reveals Viedt's true motivation and if you carefully read the explanation about when he started thinking about his 'solution' you can see the thought process. Veidt is totally amoral. He sees saving the world and bringing peace as a puzzle to be solved and in solving it he can achieve his destiny of emulating Alexander. He cares more about solving the puzzle that the cost of so doing. I really think his 'remorse' is little more than a sop compared to the elation of his success. That old quote of who is this man that he is prepared to kill for his beliefs but not die for them springs to mind.
Rorschach on the other hand is entirely moral. You may not agree with his moral code but you can't deny he does. All evil/degeneracy must be punished. Also in the frame where Rorschach is telling Manhattan to kill him there appear to be tears on his face. As he has no fear of death (or much else as stated in his psychiatric exam) this is because he is aware that he is unable to make these people pay for their crimes and he must be sacrificed. Oh and no need for Manhanttan to kill Veidt as Manhattan doesn't kill as a punishment and he knows Veidt will never tell...Dan and Laurie is another story though ...

Saw the film and thought it was visually excellent but Snyder lacks the imagination to make the story his own. Also, a little like a nerdy teenager, he ups the sex, violence and nudity in a way that does not further the plot. It's almost like he wants to secure an 18 certificate to make everyone realise that this is an Adult Movie. Well the Pianist is an adult movie film that didn't require a corny soft porn scene or a big blue willy waving about (the willy and the sex scene are both much longer than they are in the comic by the way).
I also think that if you are not intimate with the comic the film probably makes no sense. I can't tell for sure as I was too busy matching the shots to the comic frames in my head :-)
But if I have one over-arching critism (no its not the heavy handed score or the wooden acting of Laurie) its Rorschach's mask. It's too grey and for a comic nerd to make this rookie error , well...

I saw it with a friend whonever read watchmen, he followed it just fine and liked it a lot. As for the sex scene, I didn't have a problem with it; after all- it's an 80's movie.