TheRPGSite

I was reading a thread on another forum where the poster there referred to Ozymandias as the "villain" of the story.

In the sense that he's the opponent to the "protagonists" of Nite Owl and Rorschach, I would accept that.

But I simply do NOT think that he was the "Bad guy" in the sense of being the one who was either evil, or wrong, necessarily.

On the other hand, you have Rorschach, a violent psychopathic murderer, that it seems some Watchmen fans have a fan-orgasm for.  This same poster claimed that of all the characters in Watchmen, there was only one who had "a moral backbone", Rorschach.

Except that's wrong. There were two: Rorschach and Ozymandias.

You can argue about which was right and which was wrong, and I think that is, in fact, the entire fucking point. But it seems the height of Missing The Fucking Point to just say "Veidt was the bad guy!"

RPGPundit

Well of course, part of the whole point of Watchmen was that there was no good guys or bad guys, as a direct reaction to typical comic book morality of the time.  Alan Moore's just that sort of guy.

But you have to admit that, at the very least, Veidt's motives may've been in somewhat good intentions, but his methods were more that a bit extreme don't you think?

And Rorschach, yeah, I don't really get the hard on for him, the guy was a fucking psycho.  The only reason he comes off at all well is simply because the other "heroes" are not exactly sterling characters either.

NOTE: I haven't seen the movie, but I have recently re-read the graphic novel.  

It is not at all unusual for a comic-book villain to be pursuing their vision of the greater good -- as opposed to simply being greedy or sadistic.  There are lots of examples even from the Golden Age.  This is especially the case when the villain intends to be lead the way in the new world order that they are establishing.  

What is unusual is that this one wins.  He kills millions to create a world that is safer, but which he is poised to be even more powerful in.  

As for Rorschach, the graphic novel certainly sets out to make him a sympathetic character, despite being a fascist and a psycho.  For example, look at how the psychiatrist who was treating him was inspired to go and help others -- just before Veidt murdered him and millions others.  Rorschach is set up as the tragic hero of the story, who dies for his principles.  

I didn't take to him, though.  A key point for me was seeing how the only people he trusts -- the New Frontiersman producers -- stood up to defend the KKK in their editorial.  ("...despite what some might view as their later excesses, the Klan originally came into being because decent people had perfectly reasonable fears for the safety of their persons and belongings when forced into proximity with people from a culture far less morally advanced.")

Rorshach was set up as an exaggeration of two Steve Ditko-made characters: "The Question" and Mr. A. Those two both had codes of honor based on the Ayn Rand philosophy.

Moore did Rorshach as a sort of parody of that.

Saw the movie foir a second time yesterday - what surprised me was the ticket-seller was in her early 20s, has seen the movie twice herself , has read the graphic novel years ago - and her favorite chareacter is Rorshach.

Maybe the real "villain" of the story is the cold war and humankind's tendency to go to war.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;288483Rorshach was set up as an exaggeration of two Steve Ditko-made characters: "The Question" and Mr. A. Those two both had codes of honor based on the Ayn Rand philosophy.

Moore did Rorshach as a sort of parody of that.

Saw the movie foir a second time yesterday - what surprised me was the ticket-seller was in her early 20s, has seen the movie twice herself , has read the graphic novel years ago - and her favorite chareacter is Rorshach.

Maybe the real "villain" of the story is the cold war and humankind's tendency to go to war.


- Ed C.

Ed is correct about Question/Mr. A. Although Manhattan is also a kind of Ditko objectivist character as well. He's based on Captain Atom (another Ditko character). He eventually just shrugs and leaves the world to its own collapse. Blue Beetle (the version we get in Watchmen as Nite Owl) was ALSO a Ditko creation.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e9/BlueBeetle3.jpg)
(Ditko illustrated version of Blue Beetle..)

Most people like Rorshach because  he has all the best lines and he is kind of creepy and edgy. He's intense. His colors are black and white (like Mr. A), but the mask constantly changes.

What I think the movie captured really well is that at the end, Rorshach found himself suffering from the ultimate dichotomy: he simultaneously knew that if he lived by his moral code, he would have to go back to tell the world they had been tricked. He also knew that it would be better for all if Manhattan didn't let him do that.

The problem I have with Veidt has always been that in the end, he could not bring himself to kill Rorshach. He left that for Dr. Manhattan. It always struck me as cowardly. Also, if Dr. Manhattan was to kill Rorshach, it would seem to follow that Veidt should die as well. I mean, if you are going to kill to cover up the tragedy and you "care" enough to do so, doesn't it then follow that you should kill the guy who brought about the tragedy? I mean, Rorshach is a crazy loon who is wanted for multiple murders. How much pull would he have?

In the end, Veidt committed mass murder and rationalized it as "uniting the world". Rorshach killed two(?) people and had a pretty solid rationale for doing so (still a rationalization but one based on evil done). Both represent the same thing from different views. Veidt is just a higher order of magnitude and involves killing innocents, one could argue, a more successful psycho.

I always took that as the idea that Jon/Dr. Manhattan had come to respect LIfe! again after his talk with Laurie on Mars.

Killing Rorshach might be mecessary,Veidt was already punishing himself in his mind for all the death he was causing.

In the novel, we get that nice moment between Veidt and Jon. Jon is tired of causing death is what I got from that . he wants to start life - or try to.


- Ed C.

Quote from: jhkim;288469NOTE: I haven't seen the movie, but I have recently re-read the graphic novel.  

It is not at all unusual for a comic-book villain to be pursuing their vision of the greater good -- as opposed to simply being greedy or sadistic.  There are lots of examples even from the Golden Age.  This is especially the case when the villain intends to be lead the way in the new world order that they are establishing.  

Except that there's no indication that Veidt wants to do anything other than save the world.  I guess, you could maybe, maybe argue that he also wanted to see if he could.

QuoteWhat is unusual is that this one wins.  He kills millions to create a world that is safer, but which he is poised to be even more powerful in.  

Sorry, but I just don't see that as a motivation at all. Veidt's already one of if not the richest man in the world, and immensely powerful, and in the aftermath of what happens he continues to be powerful but there's no sign that he is any MORE powerful. He doesn't "take over the world" or something like that. And it certainly doesn't seem like that was his goal, either directly or subconsciously.

QuoteAs for Rorschach, the graphic novel certainly sets out to make him a sympathetic character, despite being a fascist and a psycho.  For example, look at how the psychiatrist who was treating him was inspired to go and help others -- just before Veidt murdered him and millions others.  Rorschach is set up as the tragic hero of the story, who dies for his principles.  

I really don't see that at all. I see Rorschach as an example of everything that's wrong with vigilantism; Rorschach doesn't kill villains to protect the innocent, not for a long time; he does it because he hates the scum.  He doesn't want to save anyone, he said so himself.  

And the fascist that was treating him wasn't inspired BY rorschach; his entire life fell to pieces because of Rorschach; he started to try to help others and be more decent as a reaction AGAINST everything that Rorschach stood for, that total nihilism.

I think you've had a very shallow reading of the comic, there.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Koltar;288506I always took that as the idea that Jon/Dr. Manhattan had come to respect LIfe! again after his talk with Laurie on Mars.

Killing Rorshach might be mecessary,Veidt was already punishing himself in his mind for all the death he was causing.

In the novel, we get that nice moment between Veidt and Jon. Jon is tired of causing death is what I got from that . he wants to start life - or try to.


- Ed C.

To clarify my point, I am not talking about punishment for Veidt. Dr. Manhattan would care less about punishment than the real effect Veidt could have. Veidt needed to be stopped far more than Rorshach. Veidt would kill again in the name of his holy cause as sure as Rorshach would kill. The difference would be magnitude.

And in the end, Veidt did not even dirty his hands with Rorshach. He just set up the suggestion.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;288490Most people like Rorshach because  he has all the best lines and he is kind of creepy and edgy. He's intense. His colors are black and white (like Mr. A), but the mask constantly changes.

I was horrified that the movie executives would end up changing the story to make Rorschach the noble dark anti-hero; like that little comic floating around somewhere on the web where Rorschach ends up saving the day by beating up Dr.Manhattan and Ozymandias because he's so "incredibly cool".

Its ironic that all those "dark antiheroes" basically sprung from Rorschach, because he's really the best possible condemnation of that whole concept, he's not meant to be either "cool" or good at all; and you get the point of that most strongly the first moment they unmask him and you see that he's just this pathetic little loser.

QuoteWhat I think the movie captured really well is that at the end, Rorshach found himself suffering from the ultimate dichotomy: he simultaneously knew that if he lived by his moral code, he would have to go back to tell the world they had been tricked. He also knew that it would be better for all if Manhattan didn't let him do that.

I think that is a possible way to read the events at the end. We can't really know, of course. If you wanted to be generous, you could say that Rorschach knew that he couldn't betray his principles, and he had to die, and that maybe that was better, because he represented a world that had to change.
If you don't want to be generous, you could argue that Rorschach just knew Manhattan was going to kill him, so he knew there was no point in even trying to run or fight, but would have throttled every last one of them and told everyone the truth even if it damned mankind, because he couldn't do anything else.

RPGPundit

Quote from: HinterWelt;288501In the end, Veidt committed mass murder and rationalized it as "uniting the world". Rorshach killed two(?) people and had a pretty solid rationale for doing so (still a rationalization but one based on evil done). Both represent the same thing from different views. Veidt is just a higher order of magnitude and involves killing innocents, one could argue, a more successful psycho.

It seems to me that Rorschach's only rationale was to just fight against the world and degeneracy he hated. At least, after the dog incident. Basically, after that point it stopped being about anything really heroic, and just became a personal vendetta against a life that made no sense.

Ozymandias wanted to save the world, and maybe prove he could, and certainly his rationalization was that the end justified the means. Perhaps, if nuclear annihilation was really the only certain alternative, it really did in this one case. Perhaps not. You can certainly criticize his view, but it doesn't make sense to say that he and Rorschach had the same motives only on different scales.  They didn't.

RPGPundit

Not to threadjack here, but as a fan of the comic, the more that I read this movie being discussed, then the more I want to wait until the Director's Cut comes out on DVD and watch it then.

Quote from: RPGPundit;288518Except that there's no indication that Veidt wants to do anything other than save the world.  I guess, you could maybe, maybe argue that he also wanted to see if he could.

Let me be clear here.  Both Rorschach and Ozymandias wanted to make the world better.  Ozymandias was smarter, and his way was implied to be more effective.  However, his way also involved killing millions of innocent people and the new world order he would create would be based on a gigantic lie.  

You identify more with Veidt's goal, and are confused that people sympathize with Rorschach and see Veidt as the villain.  I think their reaction is understandable even if I don't share it.  

Quote from: RPGPundit;288518Sorry, but I just don't see that as a motivation at all. Veidt's already one of if not the richest man in the world, and immensely powerful, and in the aftermath of what happens he continues to be powerful but there's no sign that he is any MORE powerful. He doesn't "take over the world" or something like that. And it certainly doesn't seem like that was his goal, either directly or subconsciously.

I don't doubt that he only intended to continue to do good as he saw fit using his millions and the millions more he would make.  However, he was prepared to capitalize on what only he knew would come.  For example, he directed buying of stocks according to his predictions of what would happen.  In talking to his Asian servants from Karnak,

Veidt: This all says "war." We should buy accordingly.
Servant: But... Sir, we have never bought into munitions ...
Veidt: Of course not. You're ignoring the subtext: increased sexual imagery, even in the candy ads.  It implies an erotic undercurrent not uncommon in times of war.  Remember the Baby Boom...
Servant: So, should we buy into ... uh ...
Veidt: Into the major erotic video companies.  That's short term. Also, we should negotiate controlling shares in selected baby food and maternity goods manufacturers.  

Note that he knows that munitions won't be sold, but in retrospect it is reasonable that there will be another baby boom.  In the papers that Rorschach and Nite Owl took from his office desk, he wrote to his marketing director Leo regarding his action figure line, saying "Suggest instead we create costumed army of terrorists, introduce as main villains in Saturday cartoon, then duplicate here along with weapons, accessories, and vehicles."  

Note how he is making costumed terrorists the villains in his line.  Again, I'm not suggesting that this is the motive, but these were the things he is shown to be working on in addition to his master plan.  I think he would use the profits from this to do as he thought best.  However, this can be seen as rather unsavory.  

Quote from: RPGPundit;288518I really don't see that at all. I see Rorschach as an example of everything that's wrong with vigilantism; Rorschach doesn't kill villains to protect the innocent, not for a long time; he does it because he hates the scum.  He doesn't want to save anyone, he said so himself.

That might be how you feel about him, but there are plenty of people who emotionally identify with wanting to punish evil -- and feel that doing so is a good end.  You might not like it, but that doesn't mean that everyone who has a different reaction is wrong.

Quote from: jhkim;288556, but that doesn't mean that everyone who has a different reaction is wrong.

Obviously, you haven't been paying attention.

Quote from: RPGPundit;288524It seems to me that Rorschach's only rationale was to just fight against the world and degeneracy he hated. At least, after the dog incident. Basically, after that point it stopped being about anything really heroic, and just became a personal vendetta against a life that made no sense.

Ozymandias wanted to save the world, and maybe prove he could, and certainly his rationalization was that the end justified the means. Perhaps, if nuclear annihilation was really the only certain alternative, it really did in this one case. Perhaps not. You can certainly criticize his view, but it doesn't make sense to say that he and Rorschach had the same motives only on different scales.  They didn't.

RPGPundit

I would disagree to an extent. They reflected each other. Rorshach was, or it seemed to me, about punishing the evil in the world. It did not matter the methods used. If they were "evil" they were expendable. This is shown very much in his interaction with Morloch. Morloch is guilty of not having a license for his gun. For a minute, you believe (and Morloch does as well) that Rorshach will kill him for it. But Rorshach says something like "Minor infraction. Get license soon" and is over it.Rorshach is all about "evil" is evil and should be punished. Good is not his concern but he is not going to kill the innocent to get his way.

Veidt on the other hand, is less principled but has the same ends justify the means. Only, he truly does not qualify the means. Rorshach would do whatever it took to "get tot he truth" (witness the bar and his "questioning"). At one point he even pulls Nite Owl (Mr. Goody two shoes) off a guy and says "Not in front of civilians". Veidt though, will kill millions, scar and hospitalize millions more to obtain his goal. Is he tortured over his actions? A secret confession of guilt to a being leaving this existence is not convincing to me. He has rationalized what he does is for the greater good of mankind. This sounds very familiar to me. It is the kind of thing we hear from  ideologues all the time.

So, to sum, although I will admit that they are slightly differing in their execution, Rorshach and Veidt are alarmingly similar. Veidt rationalized killing millions for his vision. Rorshach has a similar...principled strength...words fail me but the idea that they stick to their principles and will face all manner of horrors makes me think they are more similar than different. One kills millions including innocents while the other kills the guilty, the scum. Both rationalize it one with necessity of "saving the world" the other with the necessity of punishing the evil.

Of course, that is just my take on it, I could be wrong.

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.

Jibba: I agree with your point about Ozymandias, which is why I say that if he did have an ulterior motive, it was just to "prove he could".

I'm not too sure if I agree about you with Rorscharch; he has an absolute code, I'm not sure you could really call it "moral" though.  Its more like the "rules" mentally ill people or serial killers create for themselves.  Its not so much a belief or a conviction as it is a way to create the illusion of control out of a world that is uncontrollable.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;288520Its ironic that all those "dark antiheroes" basically sprung from Rorschach, because he's really the best possible condemnation of that whole concept, he's not meant to be either "cool" or good at all; and you get the point of that most strongly the first moment they unmask him and you see that he's just this pathetic little loser.

Okay, now you're just demonstrating your ignorance of comics dude.  Wolverine, Punisher, Daredevil, the darker grittier Batman all predate Watchmen by years and Rorschach and The Comedian are a direct reaction against their rising popularity.

Yes, lots of reviewers and analysts have parroted the same ridiculous mistake.  I'd even lay good odds that Moore gave The Comedian a cigar because Wolverine always had one.

Um, dude, I think you're the one who's a little confused.  
There was a trend in the 70s and 80s toward badasses.  Wolverine was one at that time, as you mentioned.

But the nature of their "darkness" was NOT the same as in Watchmen.  The batman pre-DKR was UTTERLY different than the post-DKR Batman in levels of grimdarkness.
Wolverine was no where near as intense before watchmen as after watchmen.  Daredevil doesn't even figure.

The Punisher did exist since 1974, as a villain/supporting character type (in his first appearance he tries to kill Spider Man), not as a hero in his own right.
His first comic isn't published until AFTER Watchmen, he didn't become a staple character until AFTER Watchmen made the "grimdark antihero" cool and publishers totally misunderstood Moore's message about how utterly pathetic they are.

Could Moore have been spoofing some of the milddark that already existed? Yes, that's certainly possible. Comics had been getting slightly more dark in that time, and Moore's comic could be seen as taking that to an extreme that Moore no doubt imagined to be ridiculous, and couldn't have imagined would end up being seen as just great by the mainstream and wholeheartedly adopted, leading to a decade or more of utter crap.

But its like the "Darkness scale" Pre-watchmen might have gone up from 1 to 5, while after watchmen it jumped from 5 to 50.  There's no comparison.

RPGPundit

errr...wolverine cut people to bits...

IRRC Allen Moore has stated that Watchmen was in part a reaction against Chris Clairmont and John Byrne's work and direction in X-men.

I tend to blame Dark Knight Returns for the constipated grimace phase in comics rather than watchmen.  There's only one character in the story who might be wearing such an expression and he wears a full face mask.

Also, DKR has lots of pouches and distorted, stylized figures where Watchmen has more realistic illustrations.

Quote from: David Johansen;293118the constipated grimace phase in comics

Love the phrase. I blame Frank Miller too.

Quote from: jibbajibba;291241There 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.

I finished the book about 15 minutes ago.  This is my take on it as well.

Veidt is primarily concerned with his legacy, and wants to have a lasting historical impact like Alexander the Great or the Pharaohs. His motivation is less about "good" and more about making sure there are people around to remember how great he was.  He was very much a villainous character - much like Al Ghul or Magneto.

Rorschach on the other hand is 'heroic' - although unbalanced, and deeply flawed as well. Lots of other comic characters are more casual with killing than Rorschach was.

Stuart; I think you're misreading Ozymandias.  Look back at the chapter where they tell his origin story; Ozymandias does NOT want to be famous or remembered forever.
In fact, his entire plan hinges on no one ever knowing that he had anything to do with it.

He put aside the Alexander-model and adopted the model of Ramses II, looking not to be the conqueror but the great builder, who would be able to do good that would outlive him.  His attempt to create world peace is his effort to do that good.

YES; he wants to have a lasting historical impact, but he doesn't do it so that there'll be "people to remember how great he was". Like I said already, he does it because:
a) he sincerely wants to do good
and
b) he wants to prove he can.

Of course, the irony is that the very name Ozymandias brings up visions of Yeats' poem, "look upon my works ye mighty and despair" but nothing remains of his works other than "two vast and trunkless legs of stone"; hinting that in the long term, Veidt will have failed (though the end of the comic itself doesn't have any indication of that, implying that, at least in the short term, his plan was a resounding success).

As for Rorschach, sorry, but I seriously cannot see him as heroic.  He's no more "heroic" than Dexter is. He does what he does because he's insane and following an internal pattern, "the rules" as he's created them in his head.

RPGPundit

Ozymandias wants to be on equal footing with Alexander the Great in the afterlife (and history books).

His (evil) plan to save the world wasn't what he wanted to be remembered for -- it was a means to an end: continued society of people to revere and remember him.

Honestly, I'm not sure whether you're serious about this or if this is part of the RPGPundit personae, who I'd expect to sympathize with Veidt. ;-)

Edit:

I haven't seen Dexter, so I can't comment on that comparison. I can think of lots of comic characters (Punisher, Wolverine, Judge Dread, even "not-killer / not-crazy" characters like Forge and Madison Jeffries who killed more easily -- and that's just the relatively small number of superhero comics I've read (and remember) from the 90s.

Quote from: RPGPundit;293329Of course, the irony is that the very name Ozymandias brings up visions of Yeats' poem, "look upon my works ye mighty and despair" but nothing remains of his works other than "two vast and trunkless legs of stone"; hinting that in the long term, Veidt will have failed (though the end of the comic itself doesn't have any indication of that, implying that, at least in the short term, his plan was a resounding success).

How about Veidt's reaction to "nothing ever ends?" He seems positively terrified of the idea that this was not the endgame, and that he's either going to have to keep deciding humanity's fate (and in the process do horrible things... or marginalize everyone else completely) or let humanity be self determining (and take the risk that he won't like their decisions). Veidt only succeeded in the task of averting a single crisis, massive though it might have been. It's no guarantee that he's forged any kind of lasting peace.

Jon skips town because he's found a successor who will take the job he never wanted (the job of playing god), and Veidt gets freaked out for a second because he realizes what a shitty job it's going to be from now on.

And of course, there's R's journal. Which could undo everything rather quickly.

I always saw Rorschach and Nite Owl as Batman. You had Bruce Wayne depicted in both characters. You had his dark menancing side as Rorschach, whilst his clever gadeting in Nite Owl.

It was interesting that Alan Moore had them as partners until Nite Owl quit.

I do find it interesting that the Pundit is willing to disect the importance of a single panel when discussing how Heroic Ozymandias is while simultaniously refusing to acknowledge that there is any more to Rorshach than, essentially, a socially approved serial killer, essentially ignoring an entire chapter that explains just how he came to be so 'grimdark'.  Or was the entire bit with the dogs just supposed to be 'another day in the Grimdark life of Grimdark Rorschach, anti-hero.'?

I think one reason he gets a lot of fan-love is that, in many ways, he is the most relatable character.  We know who and why he is. Why was Nite Owl a hero? Because... um... he liked birds and had money to burn?   Dr. Manhatten... power thrust upon him, and so forth.  

Rorschach is the ultimate schlub, the ordinary guy who had a rough life who, like many people, decided one day that he'd had 'enough'.  Of course, unlike most people who make that call, he actually did something, and kept doing something.  That's why people like Rorschach. He gets to do what they always claim they want to do.

'Man, I better not find that guy who's poisoning the local dogs before the cops do... I'll murder the sunofabitch.'

"If I saw some guy snatch a little girl off the street like that I'd chase him down and there wouldn't have to BE a trial."

Its almost a cliche to say shit like that when you hear people doing horrible things.  For the most part we mean it, at least at the exact moment we say it.  Rorschach, and other 'grimdark anti-hero' types get to live out that fantasy for us, and we love them for it.

Compare, contrast if you will with Ozymandias.  Viedt is a cipher to us. Born rich and apparently 'gifted', with no real family worth mentioning (orphaned maybe?)... who lives like that?  What drives him other than some wierd obsession that he's the spiritual inheritor of Alexander the Great?   Who sees deteriorating world conditions and says to themselves 'Hey! I know! I'll fix it by murdering millions of people!'... no one, so we can't relate to him. Its not helped by his colded blooded murder of his assistants and confederates, no matter the reasoning. People help him and he kills them as the reward.  'Friends' (the other watchmen) find out some hint of what he's up to and he murders them. Cold, rational, logical and utterly alien to ordinary people who value their friends and peers more than abstract principles.  Viedt acts like the villian, noble intentions aside, and you want to fault people for viewing him as such?

No, Rorschach started out as a basically normal dude, albeit a social misfit who grew up in an environment of abuse and created a fantasy to cover up his daddy issues. (one irony is "that the two men he considers "good" were his father, who never really existed, and President Truman, who dropped the atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in order to end the war, essentially making the same choice that Rorschach later condemns Ozymandias for making).

He decided he wanted to fight against the "filth of society" that were basically like the men who had sex with his mother.  He was basically a kind of right-wing militia-member-style vigilante but sane at that point.

It was after the case with the little girl and the dogs that his mind just snapped, and at that point he was no longer Kovacs fighting the bad guys, he was Rorschach, following a pattern; he had become completely insane, I think that Moore pretty much establishes that overtly.

As for Ozymandias, he did have parents (they died when he was 17), and what motivated him was the fact that he was smarter than almost anyone; he was constantly seeking to perfect himself (which is why he gave away his parents' money).

As for "acting like the villain", that's kind of funny. Veidt kills millions of people, but wouldn't kill anyone he didn't think "needed" to die. Rorschach essentially thinks that there's no point to anything, so he kills the people he sees as scum. Both are extremely dangerous figures, and both can be seen as wrong, but Rorschach can only be seen as "right" if you assume the model of "humanity is filth and scum that deserves punishment and their own destruction", while Ozymandias can be seen as right if you assume the model of "Humanity is worth saving".  And you're talking about abstract principles? Ozymandias kills millions to try to save the world, whereas Rorschach would doom the entire world just because of his own abstract psychopath's code.

RPGPundit

Good analysis Spike. Pundit... not so much.

Here's the thing -- Ozymandias was full of crap when he told the other characters that if they killed him that everything would fall apart and there would be WWIII. They could have taken him out AND kept quiet about what happened.  People were dying all over the place in NY, blown up boats, and 'accidents' in the Antarctic.  They could have just said Dr. Manhattan and Veidt got in a fight over something -- Manhattan killed Veidt, then split town forever.  Done.

What makes it such a great story is that you're left with this awkward feeling ending (not awkwardly written!) that makes you really consider how you feel about the scenario and the characters choices.  It's a Rorschach test of it's own in a way. :)

Ozymandias may have overspoken his case, but I think the problem with his plan (and at the same time his "insurance policy" against Manhattan and the other heroes) was that if people started looking into Ozymandias and his actions, it really wouldn't be too hard to connect the dots and see the truth of where that tentacle-thing really came from; and given his fame, if he died over in antarctica, SOMEONE would end up investigating (the U.S. government at the very least) and would discover the truth, ruining the whole plan.

And sorry, I in NO FUCKING WAY buy the "rorschach as an ordinary guy" thing, and I can't imagine that anyone but a psychopath would really believe that, if they've actually read watchmen.  Its certainly not what Alan Moore intended with Rorschach.  He's not just an "angry schlub", he's a serial killer. The people who do like him may indeed like him because he does what they only wish they could, but they like him because they're basically immature on the level of civilization and personal humanity, and he appeals to their brute animal natures. He is the instinct we have to lash out at everything around us because we're frustrated at the world.   He is a tantrum, essentially, and the people who idolize him, besides being disturbing idiots (since Moore specifically set up the whole thing so that once you saw who Rorschach really was, once he's captured, you'd be disgusted and horrified that you may have thought he was really cool before, when he was just the mask), are people who would really like to throw a tantrum at the world, who resent being forced to play by the "rules" of Civilization.

RPGPundit

Yes, we know about Ozymandias parents, but we never actually meet them. We only know about them in that he tells us about them... in passing.  They remain an abstract footnote, unlike Kovac's home, which we actually see.

Does Kovacs snap? Indisputably. He even tells us as much.  Does that make him a psychopath? Not so much.  Certainly it doesn't make him the serial killer your analysis makes him out to be.  Certainly he doesn't match the traditional profile of a serial killer or even a spree killer.  The fact that he lets Mordant (sp?) live is telling here, as does his interactions with Nite Owl after he 'snaps'.  

We could even say that Kovacs has an excuse for his excesses, a rational.

Ozymandias certainly has a REASON for what he does. Lets ignore the fact that he murders millions, thats abstract. Wasn't it Stalin that told us that once you've killed enough people they become statistics?  That's Ozy's big saving grace... that we can't truly grasp the individual horror of his millions of victims.

But his actions in his Antarctica base, the murder of his staff in very personal, intimate interactions... that very cold, clinical murder, so far removed from the rage that informs Rorschach's actions, is remarkably telling. Its been a few years since I read the Graphic Novel (its currently buried in a packing box somewhere), but I recall that unlike in the movie there were a couple of group murders rather than the just one of the movie.  

Combine that with the almost clinically sadistic way he sees off his fellow Watchmen.  Surely a man as talented and smart as he is could have killed the Comedian cleanly and relatively painlessly, but instead he essentially beats him to death. Then there is the manipulation of Dr. Manhatten, the infliction of cancer upon a former lover...  

The trouble is that Ozymandias, for all his Reasoning, has no excuse. Nothing pushed him to desperate measures, he is in full control of his actions, shapes events to his liking. He decides to do what he does with his full faculties, and for all his intelligence and talent, not to mention wealth, he deliberately choses the most horrific paths at every step of the way.  

Lets assume for the moment that I only have a fraction of Ozy's intellect (hard to swallow, I know....).  I can still think of half a dozen ways... within the framework of the narrative presented (that is, without exercising 'authorial control' which lies with Moore) that he could have reduced or avoided completely the individual crimes.

Rorschach kills people because they are doing bad things, and because he sees that as the only way to stop them.

Ozymandias kills people to cover his own ass because he can't be bothered to think of a better way.  (Example: The 'assassin' that attacks him in his office...)

You tell me which one is worse.

The real "Ordinary schlub" in the story is Nite Owl. He's the one who represents the REAL everyman, the guy who became a hero basically because it would be an adventure and he would do some good; and who now finds himself middle-aged and frustrated with his life, but keeps trying to figure out how to do the right thing.

That's a normal human being.  Rorschach represents an animal monstrosity. And obviously Ozymandias and Manhattan are not everyday schlubs either.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;293778The real "Ordinary schlub" in the story is Nite Owl. He's the one who represents the REAL everyman, the guy who became a hero basically because it would be an adventure and he would do some good; and who now finds himself middle-aged and frustrated with his life, but keeps trying to figure out how to do the right thing.

That's a normal human being.  Rorschach represents an animal monstrosity. And obviously Ozymandias and Manhattan are not everyday schlubs either.

RPGPundit

To paraphrase: let them eat Cake...



Seriously, Pundit... I don't know any ordinary schlubs who have cool flying car things and low profile night vision goggles (in 1985 no less!!!), not to mention the utter lack of responsibility that comes with inheriting money, as Nite Owl reveals.

If you think Nite Owl is that ordinary you haven't spent enough time 'among the people', you elitist prick.


On a more serious note:  We do have a serious disagreement about the role of our animal natures and civilization.  I, for one, believe it is quite possible (easy even) to be overcivilized.  Leave aside 'decadence' and other ills of civilized peoples, I think once we've cast aside too much of the animal nature, the outrage over barbaric acts even, then we have gone too far. Rorschach may be an over-reaction, leaving aside too much of the civilized, but then again, the 'civilized society' depicted in the Watchmen may actually require that. It certainly seemed quite broken.

Regarding the ordinaryness of Walter Kovacs in comparison to Dan Drieberg:

Like most ordinary people Kovacs was not born wealthy.  His overwhelming obession with crime fighting leaves him jobless, and forced to live hand to mouth.  Like ordinary people. Drieberg, even when he isn't crime fighting, doesn't have a job.

Kovacs is not particularly handsome.  He doesn't get the girl.  Amazingly enough, not everyone is as sexy as I am, and most people can identify with an ordinary looking guy, even if they may fantasize about being the hero.  Dan Drieberg is the 'Hero', the Protagonist, certainly (he's handsome, rich, gets teh girl...), but that is not the same as being ordinary.

Guy, either you're play-acting for the sake of theRPGPundit persona, or you've got a really strange world view.  That someone would see Veidt as less bad than Rorschach is pretty messed up.

They are both psychotic. One is portrayed as possibly acceptably so and the other as unacceptably so. The choice is no choice at all.

"What you say about his company is what you say about society."

Yes, Tom Sawyer enters the thread.

Dude, its becoming clear to me that you've read Watchmen like, what, Once? Twice?

That's like reading Farewell to Arms or Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas or Amber or Thus Spake Zarathustra just once.  

Until you've read Watchmen at least three or four times, you won't have a fucking clue what you're talking about, there's too much depth and too many levels in the story for a single or even two reads to grasp it.

In the course of the last 24 years, I've read Watchmen something like 10 times, and EVERY SINGLE TIME,  I find some new detail, some new hint in the story or in the background images or some new angle to understand the characters by.

Quote from: Spike;293777Yes, we know about Ozymandias parents, but we never actually meet them. We only know about them in that he tells us about them... in passing.

We know that Ozymandias' family were rich immigrants, probably escaping the second world war in Europe.  He was born in the states though.  So he was probably both an insider and an outsider, just like he is as a hero; he's not Dr.Manhattan, not totally alien, but he doesn't quite fit in either.  He had to fake his test results down, to avoid calling too much attention to himself.

QuoteDoes Kovacs snap? Indisputably. He even tells us as much.  Does that make him a psychopath? Not so much.

What else would "snapping" make him if not a psychopath? "Ultimate Rorschach?", "Rorschach X-treme"?!  Do you think Moore's point was to say "Rorschach is now so much cooler because he killed those  dogs, and now has extra-special powers, so its AWESOME that he goes around killing pimps and muggers dressed in his own filth, eating beans and sugar cubes like an animal and living in a flophouse!"?

 

QuoteCertainly it doesn't make him the serial killer your analysis makes him out to be.

Let's see: he believes that all of mankind is rotten to the core, he was already essentially psychologically imbalanced from CHILDHOOD onwards, brutally attacking other children (leaving one partially blinded from a lighted cigarette); his whore mother was murdered brutally and his only response was "good"; he had a pathological distaste for "handling female clothing" (even the dress from which his mask is made, his comment: "When I had cut it enough, it didn't look like a woman anymore"). And all that shit was BEFORE he had the incident with the dogs.

He himself has clearly demonstrated a dissociative personality; he says that before the incident he was "just kovacs pretending to be Rorschach"; and that he was "very soft" because he let the "scum" live.

And he says, explicitly: "we do not do this thing (vigilantism) because it is permitted, we do it because we have to.  We do it because we are compelled."

QuoteCertainly he doesn't match the traditional profile of a serial killer or even a spree killer.  

No? He admits he is COMPELLED to be Rorschach, and that Rorschach does not let scum live.

He says "it was Kovacs who said 'mother' then, muffled under latex, it was Kovacs who closed his eyes. It was Rorschach who opened them again." and "existence is random, has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it too long. No meaning save what we choose to impose"  and "streets stank of fire, the void breathed hard on my heart, turning its illusions to ice, shattering them.  Was reborn then, free to scrawl own design on this morally blank world. Was Rorschach".

That is the thinking of a serial killer. He has made his pattern, now he's following it. He's COMPELLED.

QuoteWe could even say that Kovacs has an excuse for his excesses, a rational.

What?!! His excuse is "I've gone batshit insane and believe that all of humanity deserves to burn".

QuoteOzymandias certainly has a REASON for what he does. Lets ignore the fact that he murders millions, thats abstract. Wasn't it Stalin that told us that once you've killed enough people they become statistics?  That's Ozy's big saving grace... that we can't truly grasp the individual horror of his millions of victims.

Ozymandias does. He tells Manhattan he's "made himself feel every death", and that he has terrible nightmares.

QuoteBut his actions in his Antarctica base, the murder of his staff in very personal, intimate interactions... that very cold, clinical murder, so far removed from the rage that informs Rorschach's actions, is remarkably telling.

Ozymandias is ruthless in what he does, there's no question of that. But he doesn't revel in it, NOR is he emotionless about it. He expresses his deep shame at the "inadequacy" of the way he's rewarding his servants for their years of loyal service. He kills them, again, because its "necessary" to him, to cover all the loose ends.  They were connected to the conspiracy.

QuoteIts been a few years since I read the Graphic Novel (its currently buried in a packing box somewhere), but I recall that unlike in the movie there were a couple of group murders rather than the just one of the movie.  

I'm not sure what you're referring to here; he does blow up all the people who were involved with the creation of the tentacle-thing.

QuoteCombine that with the almost clinically sadistic way he sees off his fellow Watchmen.  Surely a man as talented and smart as he is could have killed the Comedian cleanly and relatively painlessly, but instead he essentially beats him to death.

That's not because of sadism. That's because of the cover up. He doesn't kill him cleanly and painlessly because he needs to make it look like a random act of violence.  Of course, you can also say that in the Comedian's case its payback.  Ozymandias has to ALWAYS be the best, and prove it; and when he first met the Comedian the comedian intentionally attacked Ozymandias in the docklands, and apparently beat the crap out of him.  So this could have been the payback beating, and it could also be on account of how at the "crimebusters meeting" the Comedian had essentially dressed down Ozymandias for suggesting that the world's problems could be solved by intelligence, and Veidt then and there "swore to deny his kind their last black laugh at the Earth's expense".

 

QuoteThen there is the manipulation of Dr. Manhatten, the infliction of cancer upon a former lover...  

Again, necessary.  He HAD to get Manhattan out of the way. He wasn't sadistic, he wasn't like "bwahh hah hah hah hah!! I will give Wally Weaver cancer because I am EVIL!!!", he was just doing what he needed to do to save the world.

QuoteThe trouble is that Ozymandias, for all his Reasoning, has no excuse. Nothing pushed him to desperate measures, he is in full control of his actions, shapes events to his liking. He decides to do what he does with his full faculties, and for all his intelligence and talent, not to mention wealth, he deliberately choses the most horrific paths at every step of the way.  

No, he has no choice as much as anyone else (a recurring theme, Choice, in the novel). He recognized that Manhattan's presence accelerated rather than preventing the end of the world by nuclear war. He knew that being a nice guy would not help, that to save the world he had to "cut the gordian knot".

"Each step had to be taken carefully, constantly striving to keep in mind the enormous scale of what was at stake.  the Earth. Humanity. All we've ever known. 'End of the world' does the concept no justice. "

QuoteLets assume for the moment that I only have a fraction of Ozy's intellect (hard to swallow, I know....).  I can still think of half a dozen ways... within the framework of the narrative presented (that is, without exercising 'authorial control' which lies with Moore) that he could have reduced or avoided completely the individual crimes.

O Rly?!  He could have done that AND assured the maintenance of the conspiracy?

QuoteRorschach kills people because they are doing bad things, and because he sees that as the only way to stop them.

No. Rorschach clearly stated, he kills people because he is imposing his own pattern on a meaningless world. That's it. He may have picked "criminals" as his victims instead of "clowns" or "accountants" or "the dutch" because some vestiges of his shattered mind still want to connect to Kovacs the man, but he is now just defining his own personal inkblot.

QuoteOzymandias kills people to cover his own ass because he can't be bothered to think of a better way.  (Example: The 'assassin' that attacks him in his office...)

No, he kills people because he has to do what's necessary to save the world.

QuoteYou tell me which one is worse.

Rorschach. Ozymandias is killing people to try to save the world. Rorschach is killing people because his mommy was a whore.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Spike;293779Kovacs is not particularly handsome.  He doesn't get the girl.  Amazingly enough, not everyone is as sexy as I am, and most people can identify with an ordinary looking guy, even if they may fantasize about being the hero.  Dan Drieberg is the 'Hero', the Protagonist, certainly (he's handsome, rich, gets teh girl...), but that is not the same as being ordinary.

Dude, did you ever read the comic?! Seriously?  Because in the comic at least, Dreiberg is NOT handsome. He's lumpy and balding.  And Kovacs is not just "not handsome", he's this short ugly as shit snot-nosed ginger-haired pock-marked freak; which is part of the impact Moore creates at the moment you take off the mask, and uber-cool Rorschach (who up to that moment most readers are really impressed with) is revealed as a butt-ugly foaming-at-the-mouth snot nosed crying little loser.  It was Moore's way of saying "you know, guys who would think and act like this, they're NOT cool, they're not heroic, they're just disturbed".

Kovacs doesn't just "not get the girl", he believes all women to be whores and can't stand to be close to them or touch them. He's not an ordinary man, he's a lawncrapping freak.

Dreiberg was born rich in order to explain how he has all the toys. The place he lives, his attitudes and accoutrements (aside from the uber-tech) are totally and utterly middle-class. He's a nerdy kind of middle-aged middle-class dude who is deeply worried that he's a failure.

Its Ozymandias who is handsome, regal, rich, etc. in the comic. He's the one who lives high above the ordinary crowd.  His high aloofness, and Rorschach's wallowing in filth, are both meant to contrast with Dreiberg's ordinariness.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Spike;293777Rorschach kills people because they are doing bad things, and because he sees that as the only way to stop them.

Ozymandias kills people to cover his own ass because he can't be bothered to think of a better way.  (Example: The 'assassin' that attacks him in his office...)

You tell me which one is worse.

This is the key point to me. Rorshach kills, what, 3-5 people. He makes, according to his own reasoning, several passes on what could have easily been "justified" killings. The devil is in the details so lets look at Veidt's track record.

Out the gate he claims to be a peaceful man but...
He arranges his own assassination which gets his innocent assistant killed. He then overpowers the assassin, who he knows he can since he haired him, and force feeds him poison. Now, surely, not an "innocent" but he obviously has no problem with killing.

Next, he kills his staff. These are men who have been in on it since the beginning. Sure, they may not have the full picture but on the outside chance they may figure it out or tell what they know, he kills them, coldly with poison as he prattles on about his noble purpose.

Then we have several at the delivery company. He kills these men becasue again, they may lead back to him.

Then, of course, we have the millions in New York.

The capper for me though, is that Veidt does not have the stones to pull the trigger on Rorshach at the end. He needs his fellow watchmen to approve, to see that the murder of Rorshach is necessary. The biggest problem I have with the whole book is that Jon does not then kill Veidt to ensure he Veidt does not kill even more people in the pursuit of his "Utopia".

Oh, and I would say that Veidt and Rorshach are a purposeful study in the duality of "ends justify means". Rorshach snapped with the dogs while Veidt snapped at the "super hero team" meeting. They both use rationales to claim they do "good". They both have little issue with killing. Although, Rorshach actually seems a bit taken aback with killing children or killing in front of them. Veidt has no such inhabition.

Quote from: RPGPunditDude, its becoming clear to me that you've read Watchmen like, what, Once? Twice

Tempted not to read the rest after this. I think we all know that some people can obsessively watch some sci-fi shows over and over and memorize minute details of the settings without getting the point of the stories what so ever...

Although in this case it has almost nothing to do with the story and more to do with your own personal set of ethics.

The issue is not technical minutia, here. We're not discussing how Rorschach's grappling gun works. We're debating the literary themes of the comic and the analysis of character motivations.  And just like you would with War & Peace or with The Sun Also Rises; multiple readings and actually having studied the text and its themes makes a big difference over someone who's casually read the book once. It doesn't mean that you can't end up reaching differing conclusions with multiple read, part of what makes Watchmen great is that it leads to literary debate and varying interpretations, but that there is a fundamental difference between any shallow one-read interpretation and any interpretation borne of having actually looked at the text seriously.

RPGPundit

That's a cop-out to excuse your moral stance, and a rather weak one at that.

OMG...OMFGROFLMAO!!!!

My geek credentials have been called into question!?!  I obviously bow to the master of all things Moore, the Pundit. Forgive me for questioning your secret wisdom, your cunning insight into my lack of exposure has revealed me as the fraud I am...

> seriously... didn't I mention I hadn't read the book in a couple of years just a post ago? I hang my head at this secret shame<

I'm sorry, dude. Its gonna take me some time to actually address your reply. I'm fucking amazed I can type this I'm laughing so hard my eyes are watering. Wait... no.. those are tears of humilation... I can't tell...

No, its an analysis of the text.  I've not been calling Ozymandias a "good guy", and haven't from the start. I've suggested, from the start, that Watchmen is too complex to point at one guy and say "he's the villain", and that this is a product of stupid shallow reading.

I do think, also, that only someone seriously disturbed could suggest that Rorschach is in any way noble, or even heroic.  At best, he's a deeply flawed ethically neutral vigilante, not a villain, but certainly not a hero.

RPGPundit

Its not about "geek cred"; its about literary analysis.  Of course, part of the problem is certain people thinking that Watchmen should be read like any other comic, and bringing all the typical geek baggage into it.  I think that's what caused a lot of the grimdark period in comics; idiotic comic readers looking at Watchmen with a shallow reading and saying "holy shit, Rorschach is so awesome!!1!! He KILLS people and talks in broken sentences and he's all dark!! He's so dreamy, I'm having a social-misfit geek-orgasm!!!"

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;293784Dude, its becoming clear to me that you've read Watchmen like, what, Once? Twice?

That's like reading Farewell to Arms or Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas or Amber or Thus Spake Zarathustra just once.  

Until you've read Watchmen at least three or four times, you won't have a fucking clue what you're talking about, there's too much depth and too many levels in the story for a single or even two reads to grasp it.

In the course of the last 24 years, I've read Watchmen something like 10 times, and EVERY SINGLE TIME,  I find some new detail, some new hint in the story or in the background images or some new angle to understand the characters by.

I could, mockingly, suggest that if you can't grasp the details in a single read maybe you shouldn't have entered the academic profession.  I read most things once or twice. I've actually read the Watchmen a few more times than that, because I enjoyed it.  

And, you know, I DID admit that I hadn't read it recently as its packed away somewhere.  I did re-read V, but that's at best tangentally relevant.

QuoteWe know that Ozymandias' family were rich immigrants, probably escaping the second world war in Europe.  He was born in the states though.  So he was probably both an insider and an outsider, just like he is as a hero; he's not Dr.Manhattan, not totally alien, but he doesn't quite fit in either.  He had to fake his test results down, to avoid calling too much attention to himself.

Working from memory: What we know of Viedt comes from Viedt, and only from Viedt, regardless of the medium.  That is: we have what he tells us.   Unlike Rorschach, who provides us a flashback, unlike Manhatten, who provides us a Flashback, unlike the Comedian, who remains a cipher despite showing up in everyone elses flashbacks, and never explains himself.   It DOES make it harder to relate to him, and thus he is at some remove to the audience. Remember, this entire debate started because you had a bee in your bonnet that the plebs in the audience like Rorschach more than Ozymandias... I merely tried to explain why.  I make poke fun at the snobbish attitude you've displayed, but I didn't make it up from whole cloth.  You identify with Viedt for whatever reasons: seeing yourself as an intellectual peer, an immigrant son, perhaps even born wealthy... I don't know, you may even agree with his politics more. YOU see Viedt as more relatable, many people don't, for various reasons integral to the character and due to the way he is handled by the author.

QuoteWhat else would "snapping" make him if not a psychopath? "Ultimate Rorschach?", "Rorschach X-treme"?!  Do you think Moore's point was to say "Rorschach is now so much cooler because he killed those  dogs, and now has extra-special powers, so its AWESOME that he goes around killing pimps and muggers dressed in his own filth, eating beans and sugar cubes like an animal and living in a flophouse!"?

A psychopath suffers from a particular pathology. The Pathology of Rorschach is one of an Obsessive.  Seriously, man... You of all people should realize that there are right words and wrong words when discussing details.  Heck, you even touch on this latter.  A psychopath responds to stress with uncontrolled violent impulses.  The ONLY time Rorschach is not in control is the incident with the dogs.  At least as filmed even then he has control, it is the moment he decides it is not worth exercising.
 

QuoteLet's see: he believes that all of mankind is rotten to the core, he was already essentially psychologically imbalanced from CHILDHOOD onwards, brutally attacking other children (leaving one partially blinded from a lighted cigarette); his whore mother was murdered brutally and his only response was "good"; he had a pathological distaste for "handling female clothing" (even the dress from which his mask is made, his comment: "When I had cut it enough, it didn't look like a woman anymore"). And all that shit was BEFORE he had the incident with the dogs.

And where have I, or anyone in this thread ever tried to portray Walter Kovacs as a nice guy?  Or even well balanced?  Certainly his attitude towards women is... fragmented even from the outset.  It was a crime against a woman that drove him to become Rorschach, and it was men who victimized women (and children, yes...) who drew a disproportionate share of his wrath, and yet he clearly couldn't stand them.  Were he a real person and not a character in a comic book I'd suggest that it was the disillusionment that real women provided that spurred his distaste for them, that he actually idolized them and it is their failure to stand up to his ideals that drove his anger...  though if he were a psychopath then it would be far more likely that he would attack women and for the life of me I can't recall a single incident where he actually did.  

QuoteHe himself has clearly demonstrated a dissociative personality; he says that before the incident he was "just kovacs pretending to be Rorschach"; and that he was "very soft" because he let the "scum" live.

And he says, explicitly: "we do not do this thing (vigilantism) because it is permitted, we do it because we have to.  We do it because we are compelled."

No? He admits he is COMPELLED to be Rorschach, and that Rorschach does not let scum live.

Exactly my point.  Obsessive personality combined with what may be a mild psychotic break, or possibly some form of PTSD.  The existance of human monsters, and the inability of society drove him to deal with them drove him, an already obsessive type, to more extreme behavior.  When confronted by his own inability to save the child, the innocent, he retreated into his made up persona to protect his psyche, and became an avenger rather than a protector.  

QuoteHe says "it was Kovacs who said 'mother' then, muffled under latex, it was Kovacs who closed his eyes. It was Rorschach who opened them again." and "existence is random, has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it too long. No meaning save what we choose to impose"  and "streets stank of fire, the void breathed hard on my heart, turning its illusions to ice, shattering them.  Was reborn then, free to scrawl own design on this morally blank world. Was Rorschach".

That is the thinking of a serial killer. He has made his pattern, now he's following it. He's COMPELLED.

You are not all that familiar with serial killers then. A serial killer is fundamentally selfish.  They don't kill because the world is random, because they've been disillusioned, because they made up a personality to protect a wounded mind... they kill because they enjoy it, or because (all to frequently) they don't want a lover to leave them, they don't regard others as people with their own motivations.  That is not what Rorschach displays in the least.

QuoteWhat?!! His excuse is "I've gone batshit insane and believe that all of humanity deserves to burn".

Well, if you want to play a 'phrasing game' I can say Ozymandias's excuse is 'I destroyed millions of lives because I believe I'm good enough make everyone elses lives better.'  

Eh. I could have done better, but its a silly game.   No, Rorschach's 'excuse' is that that people he kills have actually earned it, that the civilization that you accuse him of rejecting has utterly failed at stopping these people, that someone has too.  His 'excuse' is that he was pushed too far, saw too much.

QuoteOzymandias does. He tells Manhattan he's "made himself feel every death", and that he has terrible nightmares.

Again: Never shown, only told. An important literary device.  And, to contrast with your little word game above: Viedt's 'excuse' is what? "I'm smarter than you, so I can kill people with impunity'?

QuoteOzymandias is ruthless in what he does, there's no question of that. But he doesn't revel in it, NOR is he emotionless about it. He expresses his deep shame at the "inadequacy" of the way he's rewarding his servants for their years of loyal service. He kills them, again, because its "necessary" to him, to cover all the loose ends.  They were connected to the conspiracy.

So... as long as the murders are commited in cold blood you are fine with them. Its those hot blooded 'he raped my wife and deserved to die' killings you think are evil?  

QuoteI'm not sure what you're referring to here; he does blow up all the people who were involved with the creation of the tentacle-thing.

I'm referring to that, yes, but as I recall it was two or three discrete instances close together.  I seem to recall him causing a bunch to be killed by exposure, a rather nasty death compared to the 'painless' and 'clean' death of poisoning shown in the film.

QuoteThat's not because of sadism. That's because of the cover up. He doesn't kill him cleanly and painlessly because he needs to make it look like a random act of violence.  Of course, you can also say that in the Comedian's case its payback.  Ozymandias has to ALWAYS be the best, and prove it; and when he first met the Comedian the comedian intentionally attacked Ozymandias in the docklands, and apparently beat the crap out of him.  So this could have been the payback beating, and it could also be on account of how at the "crimebusters meeting" the Comedian had essentially dressed down Ozymandias for suggesting that the world's problems could be solved by intelligence, and Veidt then and there "swore to deny his kind their last black laugh at the Earth's expense".

Again: why is this better than Rorschach? If anything, its worse.  Rorschach kills people he believes (and, coincidentally society alongside him...) are evil and do bad things... because they are bad. Viedt kills people because they slighted him, offended him, or because they were in his way.  How DID his parents die again?
 

QuoteAgain, necessary.  He HAD to get Manhattan out of the way. He wasn't sadistic, he wasn't like "bwahh hah hah hah hah!! I will give Wally Weaver cancer because I am EVIL!!!", he was just doing what he needed to do to save the world.

Debatable, even Very Debatable. His entire plan to remove Manhatten worked because Manhatten was already leaving humanity behind, already less invovled with the world at large, and thus largely 'not paying attention anyway'.   Thus Manhattan wasn't really in a position to stop Viedt, and quite possibly would have left humanity behind on his own, or with much less brutal prodding.  

QuoteNo, he has no choice as much as anyone else (a recurring theme, Choice, in the novel). He recognized that Manhattan's presence accelerated rather than preventing the end of the world by nuclear war. He knew that being a nice guy would not help, that to save the world he had to "cut the gordian knot".

Self contradiction.  If the reoccuring theme of the novel was choice, then honestly no character could be said to be 'having no choice'.  

QuoteO Rly?!  He could have done that AND assured the maintenance of the conspiracy?

When Rorschach begins investigating the Comedian's death, Viedt causes two additional deaths to cover his ass, the man he hired as an assassin and his own assistant.  You yourself have suggested that the Comedian's death was deliberate, to pay back not one but TWO personal slights. How DID the Comedian find out what Ozy was up to anyway?  If he planned everything so very carefully, every step so very carefully the entire plot device of the Comedian's murder makes no fucking sense.  If the very people who were involved in the mass murders had to die to preserve the secret, why not the Nite Owl who had no burden of guilt?    

QuoteNo. Rorschach clearly stated, he kills people because he is imposing his own pattern on a meaningless world. That's it. He may have picked "criminals" as his victims instead of "clowns" or "accountants" or "the dutch" because some vestiges of his shattered mind still want to connect to Kovacs the man, but he is now just defining his own personal inkblot.

Way to overshoot the mark, chief.  For all your high minded talk about civilization you seem to forget that, if we use society as a pattern, criminals are disruptions; Not clowns, not accountants, not even the dutch.    The selection of targets is as important as anything else; more as the people he lets go and why.  

QuoteNo, he kills people because he has to do what's necessary to save the world.

Ah, yes... because you know his assistant was destined to birth the next hitler....

QuoteRorschach. Ozymandias is killing people to try to save the world. Rorschach is killing people because his mommy was a whore.

You can keep saying that but you have yet to show how that is his motivation.  Yes, mommy was a whore. Yes, Rorschach hated his mother and had a low opinion of women.  Yet: Rorschachs victims were men and his motivation for crime fighting was.... a woman no one saved. His motivation for killing a child no one saved.

So... how exactly is he getting back at mommy for whoring again?

Again, your lack of familiarity with the comic is showing. Ozymandias' story IS shown in flashback, and he does not kill anyone from exposure (unless you count the butterflies in his garden). Ozymandias didn't kill the Comedian because he was settling a score, he killed the Comedian because the latter had accidentally happened upon the island where the tentacle-thing was being created.   That he personally beat the shit out of the Comedian may have been an opportunistic payback, however. No one is denying that Ozymandias is a narcissist who always has to be the best, that's kind of his thing.

As for the theme of Choice, Ozymandias, Rorschach and Manhattan are shown consistently in such a way that they all feel they have no choice in their actions. Veidt because he thinks its the only way to save humanity, Rorschach because he's out of his mind and cannot bend the personal inkblot-pattern he's created for himself in a senseless universe, and Manhattan because he believes that all time is pre-determined.  Nite Owl, on the other hand, who again represents the average man, DOES have a choice. He chooses to go back to being a hero.  And Laurie, she chooses Dan; and also manages to convince Manhattan that he does have a choice, to come back to Earth.

Nite Owl didn't have to die because Ozymandias had already succeeded in his plan ("thirty five minutes ago"), and was now invested/stuck.  He couldn't have retribution against Ozymandias without the whole plan being revealed and everything going back to shit; and Ozymandias knew that Dan was too reasonable to let that happen.  Rorschach, on the other hand, did have to die, because he didn't care about humanity enough to not try to stop Veidt after the fact.

RPGPundit

Who knew the Poobutt was such a utilitarian?

Quote from: RPGPundit;293831Nite Owl didn't have to die because Ozymandias had already succeeded in his plan ("thirty five minutes ago"), and was now invested/stuck. He couldn't have retribution against Ozymandias without the whole plan being revealed and everything going back to shit; and Ozymandias knew that Dan was too reasonable to let that happen.

It wasn't about him being reasonable.  If you had to pick the "theme" of Nite Owl in the story it wasn't about him being reasonable... it was about him being impotent, both figuratively and literally.  Go read it again and note all the references to him being washed up, impotent, dithering around, quitting, unable to carry through, indecisive, etc.  Now how does he perform in the last dozen pages of the book?

Nite Owl: FAIL :)

Quote from: RPGPundit;293831Rorschach, on the other hand, did have to die, because he didn't care about humanity enough to not try to stop Veidt after the fact.

That's just made-up nonsense.  Here's the real deal:

Quote from: Moore'I try to approach character writing as an actor would. They're perhaps not very formed to start with but they slowly congeal... I didn't know Rorschach was going to die at the end of Watchmen until issue four – that was the only major detail that I hadn't sorted out right from the beginning. As I thought about it, I realised there was no way that he would compromise, and if he wasn't going to compromise then he was going to die! When I got into the Rorschach issue I knew a lot about the character's surface mannerisms, but I didn't know what was inside him until I started to dig.'

Another major theme you seemed to have missed - if Ozymandias is taking over from Dr. Manhattan, what was Dr. Manhattan's legacy?

QuoteI do not believe that we have made a man to end wars.
I believe that we have made a man to end worlds.
–Dr. Milton Glass | Chapter 4: Watchmaker

So both Dr. Manhattan and Ozymandias kinda suck for humanity, and do more harm than good.

Letting Veidt get away at the end means the next time he sees something in the world not working properly, he'll use that big brain of his to "fix" it again.  Kinda like comic book villains are inclined to do.

Worth checking out:

The Un-Ethics of Watchmen (http://www.comicmix.com/news/2009/03/02/the-un-ethics-of-watchmen-part-1-a-birds-eye-view/)

QuoteIt is an ethical maxim that you cannot use a moral evil to create a moral good. You cannot use a moral evil to cure a physical evil (e.g., kill someone to get their liver to do a liver transplant to save someone else – every life is equal: back to Kant). The final solution to save the world that the surviving masks come up with has such a great cost that can it really be considered a solution, or just one more massive moral evil? Like Socrates drinking the hemlock rather than compromising the principles he'd taught for 80 years, are some things worth dying for, as a person or as a race, despite our hard-wired survival instinct? No ethicist worth anything would go along with the ending of this story and even the most pragmatic of pragmatists or moral relativists would find it pretty hard to take.

Quote from: Stuart;293837So both Dr. Manhattan and Ozymandias kinda suck for humanity, and do more harm than good.

Letting Veidt get away at the end means the next time he sees something in the world not working properly, he'll use that big brain of his to "fix" it again.  Kinda like comic book villains are inclined to do.

I always viewed it as "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions". So, yeah, I always wondered why Jon would kill Rorshach but let Veidt live.

Quote from: Stuart;293837It wasn't about him being reasonable.  If you had to pick the "theme" of Nite Owl in the story it wasn't about him being reasonable... it was about him being impotent, both figuratively and literally.  Go read it again and note all the references to him being washed up, impotent, dithering around, quitting, unable to carry through, indecisive, etc.  Now how does he perform in the last dozen pages of the book?

Nite Owl: FAIL :)

No, Nite Owl redeems himself.  He becomes a hero again, he gets the girl, he LITERALLY stops being impotent, and he starts a new life doing what he really always wanted to do.

QuoteThat's just made-up nonsense.  Here's the real deal:

I don't see anything in what Moore says that contradicts what I just said. He cared more about "not compromising" his "rules" than about humanity. That's pretty much my point.

QuoteAnother major theme you seemed to have missed - if Ozymandias is taking over from Dr. Manhattan, what was Dr. Manhattan's legacy?

Manhattan realized he's still the author of his own choices; and he both freed himself from the last of his old bonds while gaining a new understanding and appreciation for the wonder of humanity.

QuoteSo both Dr. Manhattan and Ozymandias kinda suck for humanity, and do more harm than good.

Yes, that's certainly a valid position to take in the context of the story; since Moore leaves everything nicely unresolved, its certainly not the only position to take.

QuoteLetting Veidt get away at the end means the next time he sees something in the world not working properly, he'll use that big brain of his to "fix" it again.  Kinda like comic book villains are inclined to do.

Its more like he'll be forced to from now on, if he wants to keep making his actions matter.  Its a case of "ok, you wanted to save humanity? Now you own it, good luck"; that's the essence (to me) of what Manhattan said to him, and what freaked Ozymandias out.

It still doesn't make Ozymandias Dr.Doom.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Stuart;293842Worth checking out:

The Un-Ethics of Watchmen (http://www.comicmix.com/news/2009/03/02/the-un-ethics-of-watchmen-part-1-a-birds-eye-view/)

I think that the article is very interesting. But the author seems to miss one crucial point that frames the ethical choices involved: the situation is not one of personal good, or even the question of whether the "needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many"; but whether they outweigh the needs of the ALL.
The ethical question is framed in the context of the extinction of the species.  Manhattan debates whether there's really any reason to bother saving humankind, at first believing that there's nothing more special about them than he could find in a really interesting piece of quartz or cosmic gas. He ends up deciding, instead, that living things, humans included, do belong to a special category, and are thus worth the effort of trying to save.

Ozymandias' ethics are tied into the reality that if he does nothing, humanity will be entirely wiped out. The story makes no qualms about that, there's no doubt that if WWIII hits, everyone dies, everything on earth dies (again, not just humans but all life we know of).

So the question isn't "is it ethical to kill one person to save another person" or "is it ethical to kill one person if it'll save two people"; but "is it ethical to kill one person, or four million people, if it will save not just billions of people alive today, but all of humanity as a race; its past, present, and future"?  Ozymandias frames the argument pretty fucking well; if the nukes fly, there'll be nothing left, no one, the entire species will die, and the only thing that will be left will be Richard Nixon's plaque on the moon.

That question, the question of the survival of the species, changes the rules somewhat.

RPGPundit

Quote from: HinterWelt;293847I always viewed it as "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions". So, yeah, I always wondered why Jon would kill Rorshach but let Veidt live.

He was planning to off Veidt when he first arrives, they go through that whole thing where Veidt tries to kill him, etc, but then when Veidt shows him the TV screens, and its clear that the Nuclear Annihilation has been averted, Manhattan lets Veidt live.  He lets Veidt live because of this:

"Logically, I'm afraid he's right. Exposing this plot, we destroy any chance of peace, dooming the Earth to worse destruction.  On Mars, you demonstrated life's value, if we would preserve life here, we must remain silent."

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;293852No, Nite Owl redeems himself. He becomes a hero again, he gets the girl, he LITERALLY stops being impotent, and he starts a new life doing what he really always wanted to do.

You can't show a character quitting again unless they un-quit for a while.

Quote from: RPGPundit;293852"Logically, I'm afraid he's right. Exposing this plot, we destroy any chance of peace, dooming the Earth to worse destruction.  On Mars, you demonstrated life's value, if we would preserve life here, we must remain silent."

Which could have been followed with...

Nite Owl: You're right. We can't expose his plot.

BANG-BANG-BANG-BANG-BANG-BANG-BANG

Nite Owl: Yeah, not so easy to catch them all at once, is it?

Ozymandias: >Croak<

Laurie: That was HAWT Dan.  Let's get Dr. So-Last-Week to vaporize all the evidence and we can go be superheroes some more. You shouldn't ever grow a moustache either Dan.  That would make you look really lame.

Rorschach: WOOT!
...

But of course that's not what happened, because Nite Owl is all about quitting. :D

Edit:

Quote from: RPGPunditOzymandias' ethics are tied into the reality that if he does nothing, humanity will be entirely wiped out. The story makes no qualms about that, there's no doubt that if WWIII hits, everyone dies, everything on earth dies (again, not just humans but all life we know of).

WWIII hitting isn't inevitable. Rorschach keeps predicting the end of the world, and the world keeps on going.  Dr. Manhattan is very clear about this when he tells Veidt that things will always keep on going (and he can see the Future). Dr. Manhattan trying to help the world made things worse.  Likewise the "good idea" to fix the problem that Ozymandias came up with also makes things worse.  Remember it wasn't just the deaths - it's also all the psychic trauma, which suggests all sorts of problems on its own (and is a nice parallel to nuclear fallout).

I find it troubling that you want to see Ozymandias' solution as viable... but again, I'm never sure when you're writing as RPGPundit the persona and when you're writing as the guy who goes to Pipe club.

Quote from: Stuart;293854You can't show a character quitting again unless they un-quit for a while.

Dude, the LITERAL end to his impotence happens in the "last 12 pages", after the whole thing with Ozymandias is resolved. His whole "happy ending" epilogue happens then too. He's the one who gets the girl and gets to be both normal (more or less) and happy and a superhero.
You're just wrong on this note.

In every sense that matters, Nite Owl (and Laurie) are the big winners of the story.

QuoteWhich could have been followed with...

Nite Owl: You're right. We can't expose his plot.

BANG-BANG-BANG-BANG-BANG-BANG-BANG

Nite Owl: Yeah, not so easy to catch them all at once, is it?

Ozymandias: >Croak<

Laurie: That was HAWT Dan.  Let's get Dr. So-Last-Week to vaporize all the evidence and we can go be superheroes some more. You shouldn't ever grow a moustache either Dan.  That would make you look really lame.

Rorschach: WOOT!
...

But of course that's not what happened, because Nite Owl is all about quitting. :D

No, see, that didn't happen because it would have made for a stupid propagandistic geek-orgasm story that would have sucked in comparison to the literary brilliance of how Moore finishes Watchmen.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;293855No, see, that didn't happen because it would have made for a stupid propagandistic geek-orgasm story that would have sucked in comparison to the literary brilliance of how Moore finishes Watchmen.

Be serious. The book ends perfectly because it makes people think about this issue (hence, this discussion).

That ending includes Nite Owl not being a hero (which would be the "propagandistic geek-orgasm story"), and not being an active characters.  He is very passive. And he quits.

Rorschach is a fairly archetypal comicbook hero with a thin veneer of "villain". Ozymandias is a comicbook villain with a thin veneer of hero.

At the end of the book the characters need to choose between the two.  And for their choice Dan and Laurie get a thin veneer of happy ending over what most right minded people would consider a pretty unhappy conclusion to the overall story.

Really? Getting to find love, and make a new life for yourself, and go back to doing what you really always wanted to do is a "pretty unhappy conclusion"?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;293831Again, your lack of familiarity with the comic is showing. Ozymandias' story IS shown in flashback, and he does not kill anyone from exposure (unless you count the butterflies in his garden). Ozymandias didn't kill the Comedian because he was settling a score, he killed the Comedian because the latter had accidentally happened upon the island where the tentacle-thing was being created.   That he personally beat the shit out of the Comedian may have been an opportunistic payback, however. No one is denying that Ozymandias is a narcissist who always has to be the best, that's kind of his thing.

Again: If he is smart enough to accurately predict the end of the world's inevitablilty to the point of absolute certainty, and is smart enough to know that the only way to stop it was this massively convoluted idea of psychic extradimensional entities... doncha think he'd have been smart enough to keep an eye on pretty much the only active Mask who would be looking into his little research project?  So then we are left with two conclusions: Viedt wasn't nearly as smart or careful a planner as he believes, thus the entire validity of his choice is suspect as well...

... or he let the Comedian find out solely to have an excuse to kill him, despite the fact that it put the dominoes into place for his plan to be uncovered.

Then too: He was clever enough to inflict cancer on several people well enough to fool Manhatten into thinking it was his fault, yet the only way to dispose of the Comedian is a brutal and obvious murder that attracts attention to, well, the Watchmen... Ozymandias included?  Yeah... brilliant plan.

QuoteAs for the theme of Choice, Ozymandias, Rorschach and Manhattan are shown consistently in such a way that they all feel they have no choice in their actions. Veidt because he thinks its the only way to save humanity, Rorschach because he's out of his mind and cannot bend the personal inkblot-pattern he's created for himself in a senseless universe, and Manhattan because he believes that all time is pre-determined.  Nite Owl, on the other hand, who again represents the average man, DOES have a choice. He chooses to go back to being a hero.  And Laurie, she chooses Dan; and also manages to convince Manhattan that he does have a choice, to come back to Earth.

The theme then seems to be, not Choice, but rather Fatalism.  Everything happens because it is inevitable, and thus no one is responsible for their role in the outcome. THe only people with a say in the matter are also the people who... by your own admission... don't matter.

QuoteNite Owl didn't have to die because Ozymandias had already succeeded in his plan ("thirty five minutes ago"), and was now invested/stuck.  He couldn't have retribution against Ozymandias without the whole plan being revealed and everything going back to shit; and Ozymandias knew that Dan was too reasonable to let that happen.  Rorschach, on the other hand, did have to die, because he didn't care about humanity enough to not try to stop Veidt after the fact.

Nite Owl didn't have to die... but the scientists who worked on the project did? Loose ends are loose ends.  You also miss the power of the moment by missing this point: It wasn't Viedt or Manhatten who scripted Rorschach's end... it was Rorschach himself.  You talk about choice being the theme and then miss that it was purely Rorschach's choice to die... as evidenced by Dan and Laurie's survival in the same circumstances.

And his rational is perfect with what I've been saying about him all along.  Rorschach left behind Walter Kovac's in response to the... soul searing knowledge that he couldn't save everyone, that there were monsters out there that were too horrible to contemplate.  When confronted with an absolute choice, to compromise his morals and live or stand by them and die... he chose to die.  In fact it has always struck me that he chose to die, not just so he wouldn't have to live with the fact that he'd allowed Viedt to get away with it, but in fact because he knew... at that point... that Viedt needed to live to follow through... He chose the only honorable way to compromise his own morals at that point, to force them to kill him.  

From a literary standpoint we could discuss the relavancy of Rorschach pulling off his mask... his 'Face' in his own words... at the end.  Its a symbolic act, Walter reclaiming his psyche, putting a personal face on the murder of millions... and more.  

But... you know... you'd rather pretend you don't support the utilitarian Viedt and reject Rorschach as a pure monster just because the uneducated masses like him.  

Snob.

Quote from: RPGPundit;293852He was planning to off Veidt when he first arrives, they go through that whole thing where Veidt tries to kill him, etc, but then when Veidt shows him the TV screens, and its clear that the Nuclear Annihilation has been averted, Manhattan lets Veidt live.  He lets Veidt live because of this:

"Logically, I'm afraid he's right. Exposing this plot, we destroy any chance of peace, dooming the Earth to worse destruction.  On Mars, you demonstrated life's value, if we would preserve life here, we must remain silent."

RPGPundit

This does not hold up though. Veidt's involvement in the "plan" has been covered up, at great expense and thoroughness, making his death an oddity but it would not "destroy the cover up". He would be dead, unable to kill again, thus preserving the life that everyone was so appalled at losing possibly a second time. So, yes, they would have to remain silent but Veidt would not have to live.

ETA: Oh, and the opposite is true as well. If he coudl cold bloodedly kill his three most trusted confidants, why the hell did any of the Watchman walk out of there? Talk about a risk. Also, why the hell did he not just kill Rorshach himself? It would have made much more sense if everyone died and Jon left the universe.

Except that what precipitated the need for all those deaths of people near Ozymandias was that he had (intentionally, is my theory) not really done a "cover up" in such a way that his death would not bring questions.  He did this on purpose, I think, to make sure that Manhattan (and coincidentally, the other heroes) would not be able to just off him.

He did try to deal with Rorschach, remember? He was the one who set Rorschach up so that he'd get arrested. Why wasn't he the one who killed rorschach in the antarctic? Its certainly not because he couldn't beat him, that was clear from their earlier fight; and its certainly not because he wasn't willing to "get his hands dirty", he did so on various occasions in the story; so there are a number of possible reasons: he wanted one of the other heroes to be complicit in the cover up, or he felt some particular sentiment toward his fellow heroes (even Rorschach?), or he just figured it wouldn't really be worth it (he says something like how Rorschach "wouldn't be the most credible of sources anyways"), or he was just tired.

RPGPundit

And the way I see Rorschach pulling off his mask is certainly symbolic, and yes, I see it as Kovacs recovering his psyche, but I see it as his recognizing that he needs to die; and Rorschach couldn't accept the need to cover up the truth, but Kovacs could, so he sacrificed himself. In essence, he ends up gaining a small victory at the end over the monster that he'd become, becoming the man again, instead of the mask.

RPGPundit

QuoteThen too: He was clever enough to inflict cancer on several people well enough to fool Manhatten into thinking it was his fault, yet the only way to dispose of the Comedian is a brutal and obvious murder that attracts attention to, well, the Watchmen... Ozymandias included? Yeah... brilliant plan.

QuoteIf he coudl cold bloodedly kill his three most trusted confidants, why the hell did any of the Watchman walk out of there? Talk about a risk. Also, why the hell did he not just kill Rorshach himself? It would have made much more sense if everyone died and Jon left the universe.

You guys don't think these might just be plot holes?

My impression of Watchmen, for what it's worth, was definitely that Moore was on Rorschach's side. Rorschach could have been much more reprehensible and disgusting than he was.

By the same token, I felt that Ozymandias was set up to be a schmuck.

Quote from: droog;293880You guys don't think these might just be plot holes?

My impression of Watchmen, for what it's worth, was definitely that Moore was on Rorschach's side. Rorschach could have been much more reprehensible and disgusting than he was.

By the same token, I felt that Ozymandias was set up to be a schmuck.

Yes.

Does anyone find it relavent to the conversation that the only "person" Ozy actually seems to regret killing is Bubastis, and even then he sacrificed him while trying to de-atomize Jon? I think that alone would give some insight into his psyche. Yes, he pays lip service to regretting the necessity of killing millions to save everyone, but the only true twinge of regret *I* felt was from that scene. Maybe its just that Bubastis is the only creature he feels a personal connection to - but he's still willing to kill him to further his plan.

That's because part of Ozymandias' deal is that he's willing to sacrifice anything and everything to prove he can save humanity; including killing people who are innocent, including his trusted and beloved servants, and even bubastis.  He sacrifices pretty much everything to end up "winning"; even his good nights' sleep for the rest of his life, and really, his humanity.

He is a man obsessed. This still doesn't make him a "villain" though.  Watchmen is far too nuanced for there to be any real villains.

RPGPundit

Maybe I need to read the book again, because I really don't ever recall getting the impression that he really WOULD lose sleep the rest of his life. To me, his protestations felt wooden, like he was saying it because it was what he was SUPPOSED to say, or in order to mollify his former team-mates slightly, so that they wouldn't think he was a cold-blooded monster (which in a way might argue for him, rather than against - that he cared one bit what they thought about him and his plan). He certainly didn't seem guilt-wracked in the movie.

Well, in the comic (I don't know about the movie because the fucking thing STILL hasn't come out in this fucking country), Ozymandias confesses to Manhattan that he's been having terrible dreams that are vaguely reminiscent of the "black freighter" comic; the line that leads most to conclude that the BF comic is all about Ozymandias (personally, I think that symbolism of the comic applies to a number of the characters, in different ways).

And in that line at least he certainly sounds sincere.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;293961Well, in the comic (I don't know about the movie because the fucking thing STILL hasn't come out in this fucking country), Ozymandias confesses to Manhattan that he's been having terrible dreams that are vaguely reminiscent of the "black freighter" comic; the line that leads most to conclude that the BF comic is all about Ozymandias (personally, I think that symbolism of the comic applies to a number of the characters, in different ways).

And in that line at least he certainly sounds sincere.

RPGPundit

Perhaps he suffers from psychic fallout?
There's a scary thought... an ozymandias driven mad by his own horrible psychic tentacled monster.

Well, for one thing Ozymandius almost certainly had read Tales of the Black Freighter.  Keep in mind that he selected Max Shea to script the nightmares the squid telepathed out.  He's been having that bad dream since he was ten.  He also can be safely assumed to have read the poem Ozymandius and chose his name deliberately.  Both of his rolemodels fail in the long term but he was aware of this to begin with.

Ozymandius lets Rorscharch go because he doesn't think he can walk out into an antarctic blizzard in a threadbare trenchcoat and survive.  He's wrong, but that's his charm as a villain.  Yes, he's a villain.  He murders millions.  He's smug and arrogant and he monologs before the plot succeeds.  After the crime but before success is assured.  Like many villains he's in denial.  That's all.

Quote from: David Johansen;294080Ozymandius lets Rorscharch go because he doesn't think he can walk out into an antarctic blizzard in a threadbare trenchcoat and survive.  He's wrong, but that's his charm as a villain.  Yes, he's a villain.  He murders millions.  He's smug and arrogant and he monologs before the plot succeeds.  After the crime but before success is assured.  Like many villains he's in denial.  That's all.

I'd give Ozymandias more credit than that as far as effectiveness, given the story.  He was right about everything else -- I assume that he could kill Rorschach or have him killed long before he reached civilization.  In addition, having Jon kill him means that Jon is more complicit in the conspiracy and (presumably, given Jon's alien viewpoint) less likely to betray him.  

I guess that he didn't want to kill Dan or Laurie at the time because that would upset Jon -- the one person he really can't defeat.  I think that he would arrange for suitable fatal accidents for them down the line to prevent them from having later confessions.

Quote from: beejazz;294038Perhaps he suffers from psychic fallout?
There's a scary thought... an ozymandias driven mad by his own horrible psychic tentacled monster.

That's something I considered too.  Someone as "fully developed" in his human potential as Ozymandias also probably has his doors of perception blown open (we know he used hashish) and may in fact be so good at what he does because he's somewhat psychic. His ability to see patterns and trends based on watching a hundred TV screens at once is certainly more intuitive than logical.

So yes, I think that certainly could end up being Veidt's fate...

RPGPundit

Quote from: David Johansen;294080Well, for one thing Ozymandius almost certainly had read Tales of the Black Freighter.  Keep in mind that he selected Max Shea to script the nightmares the squid telepathed out.  He's been having that bad dream since he was ten.  

Hmm. Interesting point.  That would really cast a whole other light on the Black Freighter story, wouldn't it? If Ozymandias knew it intimately, it means that its not there as some separate metaphor to the horror of what Ozymandias does; but that Ozymandias was conscious of the dangers of becoming that which he most feared, in fighting the decay of society becoming a contributor to that decay (which is what it appears that superheros actually end up being in the Watchmen-world) , and decided to figure out a different path than that.

Only, of course, the different path may not end up being all that different after all.

RPGPundit

From my Blog Entry today:

QuoteQuick Thoughts on the Watchmen Film

Ok, having finally watched the Watchmen, I can say that overall, the film was a work of art. I was bedazzled.  I do have to wonder, however, if someone who'd never read the comic would feel the same; if they'd find the progress of the film and the pace of the film making sense to them.

Beyond that, let me say I never, ever, cease to be amazed by the shallowness of geek culture. I have known, thanks to geek-spoilers, for MONTHS now that the "ending had been changed", in the sense that the Giant Psychic Octopus was not in the movie.  Geeks everywhere discussed it constantly.
And yet, that change barely affects the story in any way. On the other hand, a change at the end that radically affects one of the major characters, and thus the overall story, came as a complete surprise to me because not one online geek even mentioned it.  They cut out the moment where Ozymandias raises his arms, tears streaming down his face, shouting "I did it!" while the tv screens behind him show dozens of different images of peace.

Having replaced that scene with one where all the screens show Nixon talking about "the enemy" and Ozymandias essentially emotionally dead is about a THOUSAND times more significant a change than replacing the Giant Psychic Octopus with the Manhattan Transfer Death Ray. The latter doesn't really change anything, but the former utterly transforms Ozymandias from a humanized character into someone who is so emotionally distant and disconnected that its impossible to see him as really human.

In fact, I strongly suspect now that many of those on the recent "Watchmen: The Villain" thread on theRPGsite who were vehemently arguing that there was NO way you could see Ozymandias as anything but the villain of the story are actually people who either never read the comic, or read it years and years ago, and are basing their opinions on the influence of the movie, lacking that crucial scene.

Anyways, in general, this doesn't ruin the film for me, I think its astounding. I think that there are a several other little changes that are actually an improvement (and this one is the only one that I see as a really glaring error on the director's part), the whole feel of the film is excellent and so true to the 80s (Dan Dreiberg at the start of the movie looks like he could be Chevy Chase in a mid-80s comedy), the opening credits were brilliant, and generally speaking, I adored the film.

I just wish sometimes that my fellow geeks would be paying more attention to things besides the Giant Psychic Octopus. I think sometimes its because they don't that sci-fi and fantasy can't really be taken seriously as literary genres; when you consider the intellectual level of most of their readership.

Let me add: you stupid gits.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;297471From my Blog Entry today:



Let me add: you stupid gits.

RPGPundit

Same comment as on the blog:



I give the movie an A+ for effort, but I didn't enjoy it. It was an excellent adaptation, but I thought it was badly (and sometimes horribly) acted, had a watch-checking pace, and clumsily put together scenes.

I think it's similar to what I saw in 300, though not as aggravated, wherein Snyder would throw up a scene framing off of the page (and watchmen, unlike 300, certainly isn't in "Widescreen" on the page) and have the characters kind of clumsily stumble around in that frame, as opposed to putting together the same images in a way that were compelling onscreen.

I don't mind the "Psychic Octopus" being missing, but I think you've made a really good point about the change to Ozymandias' reaction at the end. I think that in general, probably in an attempt to make the film have a more "serious" tone, the film tends to flatten out the emotions and reactions of the characters (Comedian, especially, but it's true of everyone.), who tend to come off as reflective or bitter where on the page of the comic they are exploding with fury. So that's a particularly glaring example.

The one change that really bothered me was Jon's "nothing ever ends" speech to Laurie, instead of his final speech on that subject to Ozymandias. I don't like that Snyder trades a crucial ambiguity in the resolution of the whole storyline for a rather confusing romantic sentiment that is redundant in the face of the Mars material anyway. Weak.

But mostly the failings I saw were in execution, not in design.

Quote from: RPGPundit;288520I was horrified that the movie executives would end up changing the story to make Rorschach the noble dark anti-hero; like that little comic floating around somewhere on the web where Rorschach ends up saving the day by beating up Dr.Manhattan and Ozymandias because he's so "incredibly cool".

I wasn't surprised. The murderous possibly insane vigilante is a staple in these distressed times (Mel Gibson has made a career out of it). A lot of people today - especially men - are socially alienated. And they have a lot of frustration. Frustration about not having status. Frustration about feeling weak. Frustration about not knowing how to be a man. Rorschach is the perfect hero for that market. He was abused/bullied as a child, and now he deals out extreme violence, and doesn't care what other people think of him.

The attraction of characters like that is a pretty horrific testament to the mentality of a lot people in our modern world. But it's not surprising.

You want to talk horrifying, just look at how popular the unabashedly fascist 300 was. The Spartans are about the ugliest society thrown up by Western cilivilization, but they're lionized because they killed lots of effeminate foreigners.

The HERO sacrifices himself for others.
The VILLAIN sacrifices others for himself.
Ozymandias is the villain.