Alright, just assume lots of * SPOILERS * in this thread......


For those of you that have read the graphic novel THE WATCHMEN or read it as the original 12-issue series....I got a question:

Would that ending scene and catastrophe in the last chapter really bring mankind together in unity the way that Veidt said it would?

Dr. Manhattan implied that it would work....


Same thought - the end of the movie INDEPENDENCE DAY sort of has the same gimmick - all of humanity teaming up together in unity because there is an alien menace that threatens all of humanity.

Again, could such a thing really bring everyone on Earth together?
What happens the day after such events?

The week after?

A Month? afterwards ...even a year after those kinds of events?


- Ed C.

Ronald Reagan seemed to think something like this* would work.

*An alien threat bringing us all together.

Regards,
David R

People come together in the face of external threats, then fall apart afterwards.  The Nazis united most of the world against them, for instance.

Soon as the immediate threat is gone, politics takes back over.

I'd actually expect the formation of a totalitarian, really terrible world government.

Ozy's #1 goal should have been getting rid of Doctor Manhattan, and #2 should have been causing a very limited nuclear strike somewhere to shock everyone awake.

There's a great SciFi short story from the 80s in which a guy basically facilitates shipping a nuke to a terrorist group, which results in a nuked city. The resulting horror helps the cause of nuclear peace. The guy was then tried for crimes against humanity... but he did it for a good reason.

I'm not suggesting this is actually a good idea, but it makes a compelling story. In Watchman, at least, it seems the more intelligent ultra-extremist action Ozy would consider.

Quote from: Will;242679There's a great SciFi short story from the 80s in which a guy basically facilitates shipping a nuke to a terrorist group, which results in a nuked city. The resulting horror helps the cause of nuclear peace. The guy was then tried for crimes against humanity... but he did it for a good reason.

They always do.

ADDED: I suppose I should point out that we've been living under a sort of "nuclear peace" for over 60 years and that it's only governments run by authoritarians with only a limited concern for consequences that threatens to break it.

The effect would last about 6 months maximum, then we would all be back to killing one another as usual.

So, the majority of you seem to be saying the equivalent of "NO Hope For Humanity".

 After all, if mankind can't get unified even in the face of an extraterrestrial alien threat - then its all a big Why Bother!??

Sort of makes WalkerP and his Walkerists make sense if we go by what you guys are saying.


 If you COULD put a positive sopin on it all .....What WOULD Unite all of mankind to work together in a more permenent and sustainable way?


- Ed C.

Maybe a couple of hundred years of occupation, subjugation and slavery by an alien presence, would weed out the racists religious nutters and various other scum that are causing most of our current problems.

I mean this in the nicest and most humorous way possible.....

In the words of Wash the Pilot:

 "You're really an UP person, aren't you?


- Ed C.

Yeah pretty much.

I'm not convinced the "unification" of all humankind under a single government is a good thing, and its absence shouldn't really be cause for despair. Different strokes for different folks. Peacefulness and peaceableness is far more valuable than universality.

Doesn't have to be one government.



 Just a state where all the folks are generally united and getting along with each other.


- Ed C.


Okay....Maybe a local government for each continent and a once-a-year big picnic and outdoor barbecue to discuss things then have a hell of a party afterwards.

Quote from: Koltar;242904Doesn't have to be one government.

 Just a state where all the folks are generally united and getting along with each other.

That kind of misses the point of the end of Watchmen though. The implied peaceful resolution isn't about people being united in a positive sense, its just they are afraid of something bigger, more unknown and apparently random. Ultimately it was still politics based on fear with the assumption that humanity needs to stop this new threat. That Veidt believes its a good thing shows what an arsehole he is and for me is the final criticism of the superheroes as being really unable to address any of the problems in society.  

I don't know whether Moore himself was saying this was a good thing - my suspicion would be not. Compare the ending of Watchmen with say Promethea.  

But that's why I'd agree with everyone that it would fall apart. There's no common consensus to co-exist or understanding of the problems that caused the conflict, just a shared desire in not being the next victim of a UFO/inter-dimensional invader and as soon as the pressures off those tensions and hatreds remain.

I think things will generally get better over time. Most of the problems nowadays are from (IMO) archaic notions of patriarchal dominance (IE: women are property) and tribalism, which translate to violent destructive governments and totalitarianism.

Starvation and warfare is generally a result of tinpot crazies hoarding stuff for their gang so they can stick it to the other tribe in their region.

Which isn't to say everything will be perfect, but I think it will be a lot better.

Personally, I think a THREAT would be more damaging to human unity than beneficial, because it would serve as a distraction from evolving better ways of getting along; we'd just go back to the usual crap we do.