*SPOILER WARNING* Watchmen the graphic novel

[kane_warhead]

just realized that it wasn't Roscharch who died, but it was Kovacs.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v306/kane_warhead/1217608670028.jpg

Why is this important? I think because Rorsharch can't handle the situation(It having alot of grays in it)... which is why he is crying under that mask.

Your thoughts?

[goodm0urning]

Given the recent trailer release, a lot of new people are either going to pick up or have recently picked up Watchmen. It might be for the best to use spoiler tags on all Watchmen related talk for a while, or at least put a spoiler warning in the thread title.

Kovacs is just a man. Rorschach represents the actions, ideas, and principles that Kovacs carried out in his vigilante guise. To put it generally, actions, ideas, and principles live on. They can't be killed, even if the people who carry them out can. To put it specifically, Rorschach's actions, ideas, and principles will go on to undermine everything Veidt sought to accomplish after the story ends.

Kovacs might be crying because he can't handle the moral ambiguity. On some level, he must know that staying silent is for the best, even if every other fiber of his being fights against that idea. It's cognitive dissonance at its most extreme.

Who knows? Maybe he's crying because he knows it's too late for humanity, given that he released his journal to the press. He knows that getting killed won't stop him from thwarting Veidt's plan after all.

[Zal]

thnks for the insight goodmourning. i too just finished the watchmen, and you cleared up the ending a bit for me

[angryliberal]

add me to the "recently introduced" catagory. i'm reading the gn for teh second time right now, and i find myself in awe of how amazing the story is. i spend half my time reading and half my time engaged by the amazing artwork in each panel.

on topic, i haven't had enough time to fully digest everything iread on my first read through, but i do like the idea of the duality of rorschach and kovaks and their moral dilema...

[Barky]

I think Kovacs lost his humanity to become Rorschach. The Comedian and Rorschach both share the anarchist philosophy of the world. The way they handle this philosophy is different. Comedian went amoral, almost becoming a personified caricature of the world he saw around him. Rorschach applies his own moral code to the random pattern of life. To do this, both men needed to lose their humanity, because man cannot hold such ideals. Rorschach, at the end, gained his humanity back, his tears (his humanity) breaking through the rigid rules he forced upon himself and the world.

This is my interpretation.

[goodm0urning]

Rorschach and the Comedian are fascists. Neither one of them is an anarchist, because they don't believe that people are best left to govern themselves.

The difference is, Rorschach believed so strongly in his world view that he was willing to take it to the grave with him. The Comedian's own world view was merely a construction he used to shield himself against some of the harsher realities of the universe. He wasn't able to keep it up anymore after he discovered Veidt's plan, hence his cryptic drunken encounter with Moloch.

Perhaps Rorschach lost his humanity, but the Comedian was just faking it.

[Barky]

Rorschach and the Comedian are fascists. Neither one of them is an anarchist, because they don't believe that people are best left to govern themselves.

The difference is, Rorschach believed so strongly in his world view that he was willing to take it to the grave with him. The Comedian's own world view was merely a construction he used to shield himself against some of the harsher realities of the universe. He wasn't able to keep it up anymore after he discovered Veidt's plan, hence his cryptic drunken encounter with Moloch.

Perhaps Rorschach lost his humanity, but the Comedian was just faking it.

interesting idea.

I think you're right about the two characters politically. I'm approaching this more from a philosophical standpoint than a political one, it was ambiguous what I meant though. I think they don't believe in any kind of rhyme or reason to the universe. This is, though not typically described this way, anarchy. They see no reason or law to the universe, that everything is naught. I'm thinking nihilist I believe. Both characters see no order (or goodness) in the world, comedian takes that world and becomes a manifestation of it, Rorschach tries to being order to the madness.

[goodm0urning]

interesting idea.

I think you're right about the two characters politically. I'm approaching this more from a philosophical standpoint than a political one, it was ambiguous what I meant though. I think they don't believe in any kind of rhyme or reason to the universe. This is, though not typically described this way, anarchy. They see no reason or law to the universe, that everything is naught. I'm thinking nihilist I believe. Both characters see no order (or goodness) in the world, comedian takes that world and becomes a manifestation of it, Rorschach tries to being order to the madness.Yeah, nihilism definitely fits what you're talking about. Rorschach certainly has a nihilistic world view, though his moral code is anything but. The Comedian is a full-on nihilist, but again, it's mainly his crutch for dealing with the universe rather than what he honestly believes at the deepest level.

The Comedian actually resembles the Joker in this regard, particularly Moore's take on the character from the Killing Joke. For them, the comedy stems from what they perceive to be the ultimate meaninglessness of the universe, and the joke is the lengths people go to in order to convince themselves that it isn't so. The difference being, of course, that the Joker is legitimately nuts.

For the Comedian particularly, his belief system is enforced by the seeming inexorability of nuclear Armageddon, so naturally his whole ideology crumbled when he discovered that Veidt had appeared to do the impossible: stop the war and unite the world.

Thanks to Rorschach, that didn't end so well, but the Comedian wasn't around to see it. Rorschach, in his refusal (inability?) to yield, was the one loose end that Veidt couldn't tie up.

[DaDesiCanadian]

Kovac's/Rorschach's crying death could mean a number of things. It doesn't necessarily mean that it was Kovacs and not Rorschach who died... which is one of the reasons everyone loves the novel, it's goddamned ambiguity.

a.) Rorschach is crying because he's frustrated that he's powerless to undo what happened - remember, even with the diary, it will always be (dead) Rorschach's word again Ozy's. And it wouldn't really be hard for Ozy to prove himself innocent because:

It's the word of OZYMANDIAS, retired superhero millionare, loved by all, vs RORSCHACH, pscyhopathic, schizoprenic, general nutjob
Dreidberg would go against Rorschach's word; and considering he is Rorschach's partner in the diary, that would be a huge point in Ozy's favour.
Ozy is possibly the smartest man on Earth. He'd figure out a way.


b.) Kovacs is crying because he's regained his humanity at the moment of his death. He is probably also crying because once again, he will not have the guarantee of proving Ozy's guilt.

Of course, these are just my interpretations, and with the openness of the novel, it could quite possibly be also

SECRET OPTION c.) Rorvacs is crying because he's actually Doc Manhattan in disguise all along, and he knows he lost dat Jupussy to a fat guy dressed in an owl costume. Fuck...i'd be crying too.:shake:

[Zephyranthes]

I think the reason he takes his mask off is just because of the intense emotion Moore wanted to convey in the scene. I don't know nothing about fascism, nihilism, anarchism, Marxism, or Dadaism.

I think that scene where he takes off the mask is the climax of the emotional aspect of the narrative, though. Up to that point, it's made clear that Rorschach's mask is the true face he prefers to show the world. I can only imagine the fury and emotion that would compel him to remove it. It kind of reminds me how dudes in biblical times would rip off their robes whenever they heard horrible news.

I also remember reading an interview with Moore where he said that he basically had Rorschach remove his mask because "it just felt right" as he got to know the character. Don't know if you guys like it when writers talk about their own work, but it always fascinates me to hear about what they were thinking when they wrote it.

Did some googling and I think I found the interview.

http://blather.net/articles/amoore/watchmen2.html

[goodm0urning]

There's a similarity with the films of Robert Bresson, in that his films typically involve emotionally closed-off characters who finally exhibit some kind of passionate outburst at the end. Bresson made his films this way in order to provide his characters with a sense of redemption, or at least catharsis.

Kovacs removing his mask and crying could be thought of in that way, as a final moment of emotional outlet for a character who is otherwise flat and withdrawn.

[Buz]

besson?

[goodm0urning]

.besson?No.

[Amordien]

Let me ask since if you've come in here, it means you've probably read it and speaking openly won't destroy anything.

How do you all think this will hold up in the public? The destruction of New York, Comedian killing a pregnant lady...do you think the majority of The Watchmen will make it to film, or will it get toned down a few notches?

A lot of people I've asked say "They pulled it in Cloverfield, so why not?" A creature rampaging through a major city is a wee bit different from a creature specifically engineered to perform what's certainly going to be perceived as a "terrorist attack." Plus, Alan Moore's books have always been toned down in transition to film.

Thoughts?

[DarkNecrid]

The monster is being replaced by a giant laser, that's all we know for sure.

[goodm0urning]

Let me ask since if you've come in here, it means you've probably read it and speaking openly won't destroy anything.

How do you all think this will hold up in the public? The destruction of New York, Comedian killing a pregnant lady...do you think the majority of The Watchmen will make it to film, or will it get toned down a few notches?

A lot of people I've asked say "They pulled it in Cloverfield, so why not?" A creature rampaging through a major city is a wee bit different from a creature specifically engineered to perform what's certainly going to be perceived as a "terrorist attack." Plus, Alan Moore's books have always been toned down in transition to film.

Thoughts?Meh. I think we've gotten past the point where a significant number of people will get automatically threatened with a giant whatever. It's a much easier thing to talk about in fiction now, especially when the source material for said fiction predates the actual event by over a decade.

The monster is being replaced by a giant laser, that's all we know for sure.Gay.

[4Play]

The monster is being replaced by a giant laser, that's all we know for sure.

WHAT? :confused: Seriously?

[Ex0dUs27]

i had never heard of watchmen until i saw the trailer. im thinking of picking up the graphic novels. how much is that gonna cost me/where can i get them?

[Prophestus]

i had never heard of watchmen until i saw the trailer. im thinking of picking up the graphic novels. how much is that gonna cost me/where can i get them?

about $20 at your local comic book store mayne for the complete graphic novel, otherwise:
http://www.amazon.com/Watchmen-Alan-Moore/dp/0930289234/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1218235850&sr=8-1
10 bones right there

[OrangeCat]

There was probably a lot of shit that was running through his head at the time as Desi said. I'd like to see it as him being so angry and distraught of the injustice and betrayal that happened right before his eyes he's just hurt. Even though he has a low opinion of the other masks, it must be so painful in his eyes to be a vessel of absolute truth to have the real plot be hidden away from him, especially when he's knee deep in the revelation of the conspiracy. I wouldn't personally say he regained his humanity but couldn't believe the extent of betrayal happening to him.

OC

[voodazz]

Ah, I was really hoping Rorschach would keep his yap shut and secretly plan Ozy's downfall, but that was too much to ask.
That's what I would do anyway, especially with big blue hovering around, but then again, I'm not a crazy ass vigilante.

[ReggieHadoken]

I was flipping through my Watchmen trade a few weeks ago. Haven't read it in a year. Good stuff.

Monster being replaced by a laser is indeed gay.

[goodm0urning]

Ah, I was really hoping Rorschach would keep his yap shut and secretly plan Ozy's downfall, but that was too much to ask.
That's what I would do anyway, especially with big blue hovering around, but then again, I'm not a crazy ass vigilante.It is my opinion that, judging from the hints in the book, Rorschach indeed causes the downfall of Veidt's plan. No need for him to be alive to see it.

[oDaS]

im afraid to read this thread lookin for a review, just answer me somethin, was the movie good?

[goodm0urning]

im afraid to read this thread lookin for a review, just answer me somethin, was the movie good?...The movie isn't out yet.


I wrote a blog post about Watchmen, (http://ievolvedintothis.com/) explaining a few things about it for the noobs and briefly touching on my skepticism about the film. I'll get into all that more in-depth in my next entry.

Spoiler free, of course.

[BudaFuka]

So how exactly are they implementing lasers into that sequence, is it going to be some ID4 shit?

[goodm0urning]

So how exactly are they implementing lasers into that sequence, is it going to be some ID4 shit?If they're not idiots, then they'll handle it like they do in the book. Nobody actually sees what happens. It happens so fast that all we're privy to is a flash of light, and the next thing we see is the carnage in the aftermath. It's the most psychologically effective and least gratuitously violent way of approaching the scene.

If they are idiots--and I'm betting they are--yeah, it's probably going to be some ID4 shit.

[Amordien]

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1445107456/tt0409459


Looks like they're not punking out after all. Wow. I'm impressed.

[subzero44]

Just finished reading the GN myself. First of all I have to say I absolutely hate Jon, after all that emo garbage, he's the deciding factor meant to change the course of humanity by killing Rorschach, and then he just leaves again...very lame imo.

My take on the ending is that people will believe the journal because Jon tells Ozy that nothing ever ends, in other words history will just continue to repeat itself, which to me means he just delayed the struggle between war and peace.

Anyway, it was a good read. I'm anxious to catch things I missed my 2nd time around.

Is hooded justice just not mentioned anymore, or did I just miss that completely?

[rikstron]

Is hooded justice just not mentioned anymore, or did I just miss that completely?


He got killed; presumably by the comedian, we don't know who really killed him.

[Stanman]

He got killed; presumably by the comedian, we don't know who really killed him.

Some more subtext that I think is read in some of the end of issues articles and such is that comedian killed him because he was Gay. Or at least for some reason I remember that. I also remember somewhere else that they mentioned one of the other ones was gay too.

[goodm0urning]

Just finished reading the GN myself. First of all I have to say I absolutely hate Jon, after all that emo garbage, he's the deciding factor meant to change the course of humanity by killing Rorschach, and then he just leaves again...very lame imo.Jon wasn't being emo. His progressive alienation from humanity was very real, not just the result of listening to too many AFI records.

When your perception has widened to include everything in the universe both above and below humanity's notice, humanity itself becomes an ever-shrinking concern to you. This was discussed in the book, particularly in Veidt's interview with Whatsisface from the liberally-minded news magazine. Put yourself in Jon's shoes: how would your life change if human conflict was no different to you than black ants vs. red ants?

And especially take into consideration that Jon was never very assertive, either before or after his accident. He always tended to let life wash over him and let other people dictate his decisions to him. Everything he did was based on what others wanted out of him, so all of his Earthly concerns stemmed from the wants and needs of the people in his life. When those people slowly stopped mattering to him, what does that do to his Earthly concerns?

The thing with him leaving at the end to create life in another galaxy is a little bit of sci-fi fun that Alan Moore is having with us. It carries with it many implications, including the one that our own existence might have happened because of a being like Jon, who views humans as a curious scientist would view germs in a petri dish (which is basically what Jon is anyway).

My take on the ending is that people will believe the journal because Jon tells Ozy that nothing ever ends, in other words history will just continue to repeat itself, which to me means he just delayed the struggle between war and peace.I agree with you. I think there are strong implications that Veidt's efforts were all for naught, and that he was naive to believe that A. one man, even the smartest man with all the resources, could possibly end all wars, and B. his plan was so airtight that he could have eliminated all of the loose ends.

The clincher, to me, was when Veidt began to tell Jon about his dream, then cut himself off. He was pretty obviously describing the ending of Tales of the Black Freighter, and while Veidt's own position at the end of the story was morally ambiguous, the mariner's position was not. The mariner had murdered his own family through the misguided belief that he was saving them from an imminent threat, and thus ensured himself a place on a ship of doomed souls. If Veidt subconsciously believed himself to be the mariner, then he himself must have know that the peace between the U.S. and the Soviets would fail--rendering his plan nothing more than a pointless and horrible mass-murder.

What would be his ultimate undoing is anybody's guess. Rorschach's journal is still in the crank file at the New Frontiersman, Jon makes the entirely valid claim that "nothing ever ends" (war being one of the most enduring characteristics of human civilization), and while Dan and Laurie have vowed to remain silent, there's no guarantee that they will. It's just a matter of which of these uncontrolled factors comes into play first.

This is why I believe that Tales of the Black Freighter is absolutely essential to the story, and one of the many reasons why the film will be an incomplete and inferior experience.

Some more subtext that I think is read in some of the end of issues articles and such is that comedian killed him because he was Gay. Or at least for some reason I remember that. I also remember somewhere else that they mentioned one of the other ones was gay too.The suggestion isn't that the Comedian killed him for being gay, but that he killed him for what he perceived as a personal insult back at the Minutemen meeting. Given Blake's cynical view of human morality, he probably felt that Hooded Justice's treatment of him was unjustified, even after what he did to Sally Jupiter.

The other member who was homosexual was the Silhouette, who is discussed only fleetingly in the book. It is implied that, after her name went public in a scandal over her sexual orientation, one of her old enemies was able to track her down and kill her for revenge.

[Adam Warlock]

The other member who was homosexual was the Silhouette, who is discussed only fleetingly in the book. It is implied that, after her name went public in a scandal over her sexual orientation, one of her old enemies was able to track her down and kill her for revenge.

I think he's referring to Captain Metropolis.

[goodm0urning]

I think he's referring to Captain Metropolis.Oh, yeah. That guy was definitely a bottom.

[Akutabi Gamma]

Sorry if I shouldn't discuss this hear, but I've been hearing rumors that the ending WILL be changed in the movie.

[OJ4]

just started reading it. currently at chapter 4

[subzero44]

Jon wasn't being emo. His progressive alienation from humanity was very real, not just the result of listening to too many AFI records.

When your perception has widened to include everything in the universe both above and below humanity's notice, humanity itself becomes an ever-shrinking concern to you. This was discussed in the book, particularly in Veidt's interview with Whatsisface from the liberally-minded news magazine. Put yourself in Jon's shoes: how would your life change if human conflict was no different to you than black ants vs. red ants?

yeah i understand your point, but my point was that if he cared so little about humanity, then why would he stop rorschach. Rorschach dying was a necessity to the story, but at least let it be by the actual bad guy, not just Jon who basically fills in the gaps.

To the OP, I agree, Rorschach is an ideal and a representation of right and wrong which died doing what it believed was right. The man inside however was confused and facing death.

[f_man]

just finished it...

on the movie

im definitely seeing this work's influence on so many other hero-genre movies, tv shows, (and video games of course).

im becoming extremely skeptical about the movie after having read this. the psychological/moral component is so strong that i think the movie will essentially sell itself out in the name of making money.

there are so many things going on the graphic novel that im afraid so much of it will be trimmed from the movie translation-- stripping the movie down to just its bare plot elements.

i think if the movie creators are going to try to preserve as much of the gn as possible, theyll have to disregard what appeals to a younger, typical superhero audience. younger people cant feel the cold war backdrop like everyone else. the ending has so much more umph and meaning when placed in that context.

an analysis of the graphic novel

i see why after telling a friend of mine that i really dig the fact the dark knight contains some shades of gray and presents a moral dilemma, he highly suggested picking the watchmen up. throughout the entire novel, i found myself sympathizing and antagonizing a wide variety of characters.

the most interesting character i thought was jon, aside from his obvious supernatural abilities. hed gone back and forth periodically between god and human, deliberating morals from an objective standpoint, and then swinging the other way when he felt it necessary. on so many occasions youd see both his strengths and weaknesses come out. and then he transcends his humanity, with an interest in creating new life, as if he'd seen and felt all he needed and could with that humanity.

on veidt

moore did SUCH a good job of hinting that veidt sold himself out in the name of money. i was duped for the longest time until everything resolves in the last few chapters. which kind of surprised me: the climax happens so quickly relative to the rest of the book. at first i thought, well they couldve have drawn this out a littttle bit more and made it more exciting. and then after thinking about it, i realized that this novel was meant to place emphasis on the psychological and moral, rather than the sheer excitement of the plot. up until the end, id thought veidt was a bystander, a victim, a sellout, without morals, a man only lusting for power, and finally a hero.

his justification was just like america's for dropping the bombs in japan. killing some lives, to save more lives which still perplexes me and leaves me scratching my head about whats wrong and right in the world. and thats what made the watchmen so good.

[goodm0urning]

yeah i understand your point, but my point was that if he cared so little about humanity, then why would he stop rorschach. Rorschach dying was a necessity to the story, but at least let it be by the actual bad guy, not just Jon who basically fills in the gaps.There is no bad guy, at least, not in the traditional sense. Veidt might as well be talking directly to the reader: "Morally, you're in checkmate." Is Veidt the bad guy for murdering half of NYC? Maybe, but no more a bad guy than America as a whole was for the atomic bombings in WWII. Is Rorschach the bad guy for trying to thwart Veidt's mission to save the world? He could be. Is Dr. Manhattan the bad guy for killing Rorschach before he could blow the whistle on Veidt? Thinking in terms of good guys and bad guys is facile superhero comic book stuff, and it is antithetical to how Watchmen works.

As for killing Rorschach, that's an interesting subject. Rorschach wanted him to do it. Maybe Jon did it because it was easy, like swatting a fly, or maybe he did it as his last humane act. I would bet the latter.

[gemdoom]

finished it now great story.

from reading some other posts my view on Rorschach was that it was Rorschach going to leave and do his thing,UNTIL kovacs came out and took control and knew the only way for the whole plan to work.



its been awhile since i felt really hyped or emotional for something.

for example when mason died i was angry SO fucking angry! because reading his biography felt so REAL and how he worked hard and felt happy retiring and working in his shop, then the kids found him dead........ gosh. really sad for him

funny moments also with Rorschach of all people, his inkblot tests were funny, his wit and that fight with OZ was just so funny with him and the fork.
i laughed hard for the nite owl snow suite, so weird lol
so much stuff i might have missed. but like that bernie said i have to read over because i missed stuff, or someshit like that.

great book i hope to see my favorite parts turn out good in the movie.

[Zephyranthes]

What does "antithetical" mean?

[Adam Warlock]

What does "antithetical" mean?

Essentially the opposite; in this case, he's saying it goes against what Watchmen is actually meant to portray.

[LiftedResearch]

I don't think that Rorschach wanted Jon to kill him. He probably realized that there was no way he was getting out of there with Jon going along with Veidt's plan, but he is a man that as he said himself will "never compromise." In tears, knowing he had done all he could do, he accepted his fate.

On another note...I believe I read somewhere that Snyder wanted to (or had already) make Tales of the Black Freighter into a separate shorter feature. This would lead us to believe it WON'T be in the movie, which is pretty troubling...so if this is true, it probably won't be until the DVD release that we get to see the *complete* version.

I also think that anyone trying to watch this movie that hasn't read the book will both come in and leave the theater thinking, "WTF?!"

[Zephyranthes]

Essentially the opposite; in this case, he's saying it goes against what Watchmen is actually meant to portray.

Since when did you play the straight man?

[Adam Warlock]

Since when did you play the straight man?

I didn't pay attention to who I was quoting. :rofl: I've been answering Maxx questions so this seemed legitimate.

[goodm0urning]

I didn't pay attention to who I was quoting. :rofl: I've been answering Maxx questions so this seemed legitimate.What does "legitimate" mean? I swear, sometimes I don't know what the fuck is going on.

[Adam Warlock]

I hate you all like emos hate themselves, so I will cut you with words.

[DingDangDoomsday]

watchmen is off the chain, dawgs...

[DaDesiCanadian]

What does "words" mean?

[Sano]

Dusted off and re-reading my copy now, prior to the movie release since I have vague memories of the book. The more I dig into it, the more I think that making a movie of this book is a mistake, there's going to be a lot of stuff on the cutting room floor. So far, the flick looks nice and I could be wrong. Still prefer From Hell (the book) to Watchmen but Watchmen is great too.

[subzero44]

kinda a derail here, but anyone know how v for vendetta stood next to the GN?

[Zephyranthes]

The V For Vendetta movie sucked ass. The comic book is godly.

That's the problem with Alan Moore comics being adapted into movies. It can't and shouldn't be done.

From Hell, V For Vendetta, Watchmen - all three of those are contenders for title of "greatest comics ever made" and there's just no way the movies could capture the heart and soul of Moore's writing. The From Hell movie was crap, too. League of Extraordinary Gentlemen the movie was one of the worst action films ever made. That one was so bad I felt personally offended. And the Constantine movie did not understand the character very much. And there's not much reason to watch those '80s Swamp Thing flicks unless you wanna check out Adrienne Barbeau's giant mammary glands.

Yeah, these movie studios can make a lot of money by stripmining Alan Moore's goldmine and using the names of his characters and superficial aspects of his plots, but if they aren't gonna capture the true essence of his work (and they most likely won't), Hollywood shouldn't even fucking bother. A significant part of the reason why Alan Moore's comics are top tier is because he writes them to be COMICS, not fucking glorified storyboards set to be adapted for film.

Some optimistic people might say it's a great thing that the Watchmen movie is generating so much hype and excitement for the comic, but how many of those hundreds of thousands of people do you think are actually going to read every single page of the comics (including the text pieces at the end of the chapters)? I can already imagine a bunch of heathens picking up Watchmen, flipping through it, and, having no context for the work, being turned off by the multitude of words and the faux-Silver Age style coloring. Those people should be fucking punched in the face!

One of my buddies tried reading Watchmen once. He got to the end of the first chapter, and then skipped the text piece. Then at the end of the second chapter, he gave up because of all the words. I murdered his family and we haven't spoken since.

The point is, read the comic book instead of the movie. If people are too stupid or lazy to read, then fuck 'em and who needs 'em?

That's my little rant for the day. I'll probably be back when P. Gabby makes a hateful post countering everything I've just said and hurting my feelings in the process. (Ten to one he just comes back with some offhanded, flippant remark like, "its just watchmen.")

[subzero44]

The V For Vendetta movie sucked ass. The comic book is godly.

That's the problem with Alan Moore comics being adapted into movies. It can't and shouldn't be done.

From Hell, V For Vendetta, Watchmen - all three of those are contenders for title of "greatest comics ever made" and there's just no way the movies could capture the heart and soul of Moore's writing. The From Hell movie was crap, too. League of Extraordinary Gentlemen the movie was one of the worst action films ever made. That one was so bad I felt personally offended. And the Constantine movie did not understand the character very much. And there's not much reason to watch those '80s Swamp Thing flicks unless you wanna check out Adrienne Barbeau's giant mammary glands.

Yeah, these movie studios can make a lot of money by stripmining Alan Moore's goldmine and using the names of his characters and superficial aspects of his plots, but if they aren't gonna capture the true essence of his work (and they most likely won't), Hollywood shouldn't even fucking bother. A significant part of the reason why Alan Moore's comics are top tier is because he writes them to be COMICS, not fucking glorified storyboards set to be adapted for film.

Some optimistic people might say it's a great thing that the Watchmen movie is generating so much hype and excitement for the comic, but how many of those hundreds of thousands of people do you think are actually going to read every single page of the comics (including the text pieces at the end of the chapters)? I can already imagine a bunch of heathens picking up Watchmen, flipping through it, and, having no context for the work, being turned off by the multitude of words and the faux-Silver Age style coloring. Those people should be fucking punched in the face!

One of my buddies tried reading Watchmen once. He got to the end of the first chapter, and then skipped the text piece. Then at the end of the second chapter, he gave up because of all the words. I murdered his family and we haven't spoken since.

The point is, read the comic book instead of the movie. If people are too stupid or lazy to read, then fuck 'em and who needs 'em?

That's my little rant for the day. I'll probably be back when P. Gabby makes a hateful post countering everything I've just said and hurting my feelings in the process. (Ten to one he just comes back with some offhanded, flippant remark like, "its just watchmen.")

lol such passion. I will say, as much as i enjoyed the read, even the chapter ending excerps, I was rather turned off by the choice of coloring, but again, thats a personal preferecnce toward most things of that sort, I like natural colors, not fake ones. Honestly tho, artwork is artwork for the most part, That book could have probably been written out w/o pictures and still been a pretty good read, minus the pirate comic.

[vpt_whatup]

Man I remember reading this a few years ago. It was so daunting, lol. I just opened it up again and my mind is being blow all over again...

So how do you think this stands up as a super-hero comic? Forget about all of the cultural, social, or psychological aspects. In my opinion it is pretty average--maybe a 6/10.

[Zephyranthes]

So how do you think this stands up as a super-hero comic? Forget about all of the cultural, social, or psychological aspects. In my opinion it is pretty average--maybe a 6/10.

Did Psycho Gorath hack into someone's account? Such powerful hate... OUCH. I feel like I just got my teeth kicked in.

goody can handle this one.

[Buz]

its basically as much as a super hero book
as DKR was a super hero movie

[Zephyranthes]

The difference between Batman and Watchmen is that Batman is just a character while Watchmen is a complete experience in and of itself. You can take Batman and put him in just about any situation and tell just about any story with him. You add or subtract something from Watchmen, and it's no longer Watchmen. At that point, why even bother using the Watchmen license? Why not just tell a story with different characters? Why tarnish the name?

[vpt_whatup]

Ummm... okay? Relax? I wasn't hating on 'Watchmen' at all. I was trying to look at it without paying attention to all of the underlying messages. Like imagine if 'Watchmen' was made into a TV-Y7 cartoon. Hope that doesn't offend you as well.

[Zephyranthes]

I am staunchly opposed to any film or television adaptation of Alan Moore's work. Suggesting that I imagine Watchmen being raped into a TV-Y7 cartoon is highly offensive, and I plan on filing a series of complaints to our glorious Mod, Sano. I cannot fathom the depravity of the mind of a person who would find humor in mocking Watchmen. Such an attitude is truly an affront to humanity, and I am going to go kick my neighbor's dog in righteous anger.

[goodm0urning]

Zeph, I have your back.

Watchmen is a superhero story insofar as it is a story with superheroes in it. It shares so few conventions typical of the genre. I'll not bore everyone by naming them all, but a few of the noteworthy ways that Watchmen bucks expectations are its rejection of ongoing continuity and its realistic reading of archetypes that are usually used in service of fantasy.

One of the biggest problems with ongoing continuity is that it prevents characters from growing and changing in meaningful ways. Characters in ongoing titles don't really experience major development, which is the bread and butter of character-driven storytelling--and when they do, it often rings hollow, because every big change comes with a giant red reset button on the front of it. These days, continuity has contributed as much to the insipid banality of superhero comics as anything else. Watchmen circumvents this problem by telling a story in a self-contained universe, with a definite beginning and ending. Characters are allowed to grow, experience major changes, and even die with a sense of permanence. You don't have to worry about Rorschach rising from the dead in issue 13, so his death in issue 12 retains its significance.

And Watchmen's realism isn't the usual kind you see in the superhero genre, which is more like lip service than anything else. Watchmen is real because the people in the story feel real and the events are logical. It's not the "Oh shit, I see the Empire State Building in the background!" two dimensional idea of real. Everything is defined with the clarity and completeness you'd expect from reality.

Those are the biggest differences I can think of between Watchmen and more mainstream fare. With something like Batman, there is a ton of wiggle room when translating the character between different storytelling situations. He's part of the larger fabric of popular culture, and no one story or means of storytelling offer the definitive version. He's simply (simplistically?) designed such that there's room for many interpretations and there is a 70 year history of good stories, bad stories, and everything in between to draw from. Watchmen is utterly different.

Watchmen can't be made into a Y-7 cartoon any more than Barney can be made into an R-rated action star. There's only so much you can change a thing, so many elements you can strip away, and so many outside elements you can add before it ceases to be that thing altogether. It becomes something completely different, and that's why Watchmen ultimately isn't going to work on film. It might be Watchmen in name, but you can count on them ditching a lot of the stuff that makes Watchmen such a rich read.

Zack Snyder is attempting the equivalent of turning Singing in the Rain into a novel... no matter how hard he rides the source material, the essence of what makes it what it is will get lost in the translation.


Also, the V For Vendetta movie wins as a shallow popcorn movie, but fails hard at being even a marginally faithful adaptation of the book.

[troll_hammer]

[QUOTE=goodm0urning;5458701]
Zack Snyder is attempting the equivalent of turning Singing in the Rain into a novel... no matter how hard he rides the source material, the essence of what makes it what it is will get lost in the translation.[QUOTE]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

There's just too much of an underlying message that you experience when you actually read Watchmen that will get lost in translation.

To me it'll be just like Lord of the Rings... where the masses loved the movies, but those who read the novels thought was too much missing and the experience was bastardized.

I don't think the movie will suck though. I think Zak Snyder is a capable director. It won't be true to the Graphic novel, but even if it is and Zack Snyder pulls this off, I think Alan Moore will still hate it.... the man hates everything.

[vpt_whatup]

Wow... talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.

I'm not trying to make enemies, but guys know that you're going to watch the movie in the theater and probably buy the DVD as well. So why keep defending? And think about all of those moments growing up when you thought "Man I'd like to see this as a movie." It's basically a fan-service. Who cares if it isn't true to the graphic novel. No adaptation can be. Just be happy that the movie(s) are exposing the graphic novels to a new audience.

And my idea for a TV-Y7 show was purely hypothetical and intended to create humorous discussion.

Good-bye.

[troll_hammer]

It's basically a fan-service. Who cares if it isn't true to the graphic novel. No adaptation can be. Just be happy that the movie(s) are exposing the graphic novels to a new audience.
Good-bye.

Actually that's a very good point because I never actually read Wanted before I saw Movie. I was disappointed in both.

[Zephyranthes]

I'm not trying to make enemies, but guys know that you're going to watch the movie in the theater and probably buy the DVD as well. . . . And think about all of those moments growing up when you thought "Man I'd like to see this as a movie." . . .

Good-bye.

But I am not going to watch the Watchmen movie. The only person who could ever convince me to even give the Watchmen movie a fair chance is Alan Moore himself. If he takes a break from his witchcraft and crawls out of his dark, gothic library and says to the world, "I approve of this Watchmen movie and I want everyone to watch it!" then I suppose I will be compelled to try it out.

Otherwise, I don't care. I will not watch a movie which I know will only piss me off and annoy me. Dr. Manhattan himself could stand in front of me and dangle his large testicles in a shining atomic blue aura, and threaten to blast me out of existence if I don't watch the movie. Won't matter. To paraphrase the great George W. Bush, I will not tire, I will not not falter, I will not fail - I won't watch the movie. To quote Rorschach, "Never compromise. Not even in the face of armageddon."

And I don't read comics and think to myself, "Wow, I'd like to see this as a movie." Comic books are comic books, and I am content with how my own imagination processes the experience of reading. If anything, sometimes when I watch movies, I think, Wow, this could've turned out a lot better if it'd been a comic book.

Also, thanks for taking me so seriously. I feel proud.

[Buz]

Comics turned into movies are fun

[goodm0urning]

I'm not trying to make enemies, but guys know that you're going to watch the movie in the theater and probably buy the DVD as well. So why keep defending? And think about all of those moments growing up when you thought "Man I'd like to see this as a movie." It's basically a fan-service. Who cares if it isn't true to the graphic novel. No adaptation can be. Just be happy that the movie(s) are exposing the graphic novels to a new audience.Nobody's making enemies and nobody's mad at you. Don't take anything personally here.

I could offer a long, wordy rebuttal to your first point, but it could all be summed up as thus: I have no intention whatsoever of paying to see Watchmen. I don't want to see it. I don't need to see it. Many comics fans have the self-loathing mentality that a movie based on a comic is worth seeing just because it's a movie. I am not one of those people.

And the movie won't be exposing the graphic novel to a new audience. It will be exposing a basic, watered-down, and possibly skewed version of the story to a new audience. There will be a minority of audience members who will pick up the book after seeing the film, but their perception of the story will have already been colored forever by the film, so they're still not getting the full deal. And for the majority of the audience, they'll happily continue to ignore the existence of the book and return to their homes, content that they know what this Watchmen hullabaloo is all about.

I will be happy to see the graphic novel brought to a new audience if it's actually the graphic novel being brought to them, and (mercifully) the trailer has at least given sales of the Watchmen book a gentle kick in the ass. Nevertheless, the movie, no matter how faithful it is, is not and cannot be the same thing. So no, I don't feel I have to "just be happy" about any of it.

[subzero44]

didn't really read the monologues so i'm not sure if its been stated, but I'm pretty sure the watchmen movie will fall into that category of "Its good if you didn't read the novel" which is basically what movie makers are aiming for anyway.

On a personal note as i previously stated, it'll be cool just to see that characters come to life with good colors, not all that orange/purple/green crap.

[goodm0urning]

I think the coloring in Watchmen is severely underrated. It has a goal and it achieves it, and doesn't draw too much attention to itself.

There is a trend in modern comics to do this out-of-control computerized coloring thing, and it's definitely colorful. But it's a loud and caustic sort of colorful that doesn't do anything important other than grab the eye. Color can be used gratuitously or it can be specifically applied for storytelling purposes, and Watchmen does the latter.

When John Higgins recolored the book for the Absolute Edition, he really didn't change much. He fixed a couple of mistakes here and there, and the colors are bolder and less washed out, but he revisits the same palette from the original edition and doesn't really deviate from it.

[Nightwing1990]

Trivia: If you notice in every so chapter you would see the mention of a "Pale Horse" which is Armageddon.... cool how AM just adds that little biblical excerpt.. :D

[4Play]

Watchmen babies in V for vacation. (http://blog.janfe.com/wp-content/themes/janfe_seo/images/watchmen_babies.jpg)

[m121akuma]

Guess who just finished!

Great read, although I'm still soaking everything in, so more thoughts may come later.

Considering the fact that sales of the GN have SKYROCKETED since the trailers release, I don't think the whole "movie doesn't increase the audience of the book" argument holds any real water.

Although the theater cut may be inadequate, I think the 5 hour DVD release might very well be the closest thing we can possibly get to an accurate Watchmen movie.

I mean, Solid Snake is writing the damn thing, and Moore gave his script the closest thing his ego would ever allow him to give as his blessing, so I think there may be a chance here.

[BudaFuka]

I mean, Solid Snake is writing the damn thing, and Moore gave his script the closest thing his ego would ever allow him to give as his blessing, so I think there may be a chance here.

I thought that script was scrapped.

Wow, that felt weird to type.

[goodm0urning]

Considering the fact that sales of the GN have SKYROCKETED since the trailers release, I don't think the whole "movie doesn't increase the audience of the book" argument holds any real water.People aren't picking up the book because of the movie. They're picking it up because of the hype surrounding it. The movie itself could be two hours of lab rats fucking each other and it wouldn't matter at this point in time.

[Nightwing1990]

People aren't picking up the book because of the movie. They're picking it up because of the hype surrounding it. The movie itself could be two hours of lab rats fucking each other and it wouldn't matter at this point in time.

He's gotta point there, people are just picking up the book because the hype, even myself i picked it up so when i watch the movie i could brag bout what they did wrong and what they did right:confused:

[NIKO:ONE]

Hello, are there any other comics someone could introduce to me on the same level as Watchmen

[goodm0urning]

Hello, are there any other comics someone could introduce to me on the same level as WatchmenNot many.

For more high-quality Moore, try V For Vendetta. For generally awesome superhero storytelling with a similar level of sophistication, inventiveness, and brain-twistiness, try All Star Superman.

[Zephyranthes]

So I saw Painy on Saturday and he said he finally forced himself to finish Watchmen. He said it was "good" but his unconvincing tone of voice implied that he was just saying that so I wouldn't take his eyeglasses and smash them into bits. So instead, I took a dump in his backpack when he wasn't looking.

[ViciousSLASH]

lol, Doop is in your avatar.

lol.

Read planetary, I loved that shit.

[maelstrom218]

I'm surprised at all the movie Watchmen hate.

I'll be the first to say that comic/book adaption to movies are usually awful. And even when they do turn out okay, there's often quite a bit missing. But I once heard someone say that in order to translate comic/books accurately to the silver screen, you have to distill the source material down to its essence--what the story's about, what the character(s) is/are trying to do, the major themes--and work with and around that to make a decent movie.

LotR is a pretty good example. I mean, sure there's stuff missing, like Bombadil. And there's lots of random inconsistencies, like Pippin's blade--in the book, it was forged by the Numenorians as a means to fight the ancient evil of Angmar, which is why it was so potent against the Ringwraith in the Battle of Pelennor Fields. Only that blade could have hurt the Ringwraith, but in the movie, Pippin just used some random blade. Huge omission, I'd say.

But in the end though, it doesn't matter--because LotR is, when you get down to it, about perseverance, good against overwhelming evil, mythology, all that stuff. And Peter Jackson's LotR captured that pretty well.

So, when it comes to Watchmen--I know that there's going to be stuff missing, because there's no way that they can fit 100% of its amazingness into the movie. I'm going in there with decreased expectations--all I'm really hoping for is that they capture the general spirit of the characters. Rorschach's single-minded, obsessive objectivism and ruthlessness. Dr. Manhattan's increasing difficulty in relating to humanity. That kind of stuff.

And hell, it can't be that hard to portray the characters. They have the source material to work with, after all. It'd be nearly impossible for them to mess up. At least, one would hope so.

If they can do that, I'm fine with it. After all, I can always go back to the actual graphic novel to get my fix if the movie misses certain elements.

[angryliberal]

And hell, it can't be that hard to portray the characters. They have the source material to work with, after all. It'd be nearly impossible for them to mess up. At least, one would hope so.

this is the man who took zombies and made them run...i truly have no faith in zack snyder's ability as a storyteller or director. especially when trying to translate something so deep. i'm even less confident whenever i see him interviewed...

i'll watch the watchmen movie(lolz), but i'm not putting any confidence in the idea that it is going to be even baseline enjoyable...

[troll_hammer]

this is the man who took zombies and made them run...i truly have no faith in zack snyder's ability as a storyteller or director. especially when trying to translate something so deep. i'm even less confident whenever i see him interviewed...

i'll watch the watchmen movie(lolz), but i'm not putting any confidence in the idea that it is going to be even baseline enjoyable...

Yes the Dawn of the Dead remake is pretty horrible... but it wasn't house of the dead. And besides, Zak Snyder pretty much hit 300 dead on... ok except for the parts with Sarah Connor#2.

[angryliberal]

the problem was that it was a remake of the quinticential(sp?) zombie flick, and it broke one of the most basic rules of zombie-dom...

[goodm0urning]

You can't distill Watchmen down to its essence, because what makes Watchmen uniquely a comic book is that its essence is as much in the small outlying details as it is in the central story threads. You lose that stuff, you lose a lot of what makes Watchmen such a rich and complete experience. If you're going to get rid of that, you might as well make a generic superhero movie set in a fictionalized "real" world--because that's what you're going to have anyway.

[angryliberal]

You lose that stuff, you lose a lot of what makes Watchmen such a rich and complete experience.

beyond teh fear that i am going to have to sit through the watchmen equivilant of 300, this is really the problem...it would be like just listening to one song off of dark side to judge the album, or watching a single episode of arrested development to get the humor - watchmen is a carefully crafted piece, from the art, to the coloring to the way the story plays out in the frames. even a truly visionary director like gilliam or miike couldn't translate those pages to film. not even if you took each comic book and made it's own seperate movie could you ever begin to capture the completeness of the story...

[Sano]

I dunno, I had issues with 300. Why oh why in this day and age did they have to kill a person of African decent in the first five minutes of the movie when they could of had someone from any race play the character really? Yeash it's 2008, Hollywood stop doing this crap. And what the heck was up with that scene where everything turned pitched black and you could only see the Black fat guy's eyes? WTF was that about?

And electric guitars? Seriously? SERIOUSLY? Nah bust out the Conan type orchestra man do you know how epic that would of sounded in an Imax theater? If you must use electric guitars, heck put them in the orchestra. Just saying...

Other than that it was fine I guess, hey it was a good movie. I just felt there were a few poor choices in there is all. Which is why I'm a bit uneasy about Watchmen. Of course, the director is only part of the equation when it comes to movies. So far it looks nice and sure I'll go see it.

I swear that Hollywood just picks up graphic novels nowadays and says "Oh snap the storyboard is already done, let's film this!" so we get quite a few comic book movies that have no soul. I'm hoping that's not the case with Watchmen. We'll see I guess. At least everything looks purty.

But if The Comedian is Black I'm out. :rofl:

[HeaT]

Not many.

For more high-quality Moore, try V For Vendetta. For generally awesome superhero storytelling with a similar level of sophistication, inventiveness, and brain-twistiness, try All Star Superman.

100 bullets...

im outi

Roberth

[angryliberal]

moore did "the killing joke" correct? i heard that was very much worth picking up...

[HeaT]

moore did "the killing joke" correct? i heard that was very much worth picking up...

ya he did, his other good work is From Hell...

im outi

Roberth

[angryliberal]

i knew he did from hell, lxg and v...i'd like to move on to some of his other works as soon as i'm done reading watchmen about five more times...

[Arxinal]

I'm a bit late to the party I was moved by the trailer so I picked up the book today I went to a park and read the entire book and finished a few hours ago. I'm blown away. This is my first comic/graphic novel and I wanted to be excited for the movie and am I ever. The book the story and ending is a bit fresh in my mind so I won't go into anything. I'll just say wow.

[troll_hammer]

I'm a bit late to the party I was moved by the trailer so I picked up the book today I went to a park and read the entire book and finished a few hours ago. I'm blown away. This is my first comic/graphic novel and I wanted to be excited for the movie and am I ever. The book the story and ending is a bit fresh in my mind so I won't go into anything. I'll just say wow.

The ending is probably one of the best comic book/graphic novel ending in history. That's the part that sticks to my mind the most.

[troll_hammer]

actually I'm kinda pissed the Nite-Owl suit doesn't make the actor look fat.

[4Play]

i knew he did from hell, lxg and v...i'd like to move on to some of his other works as soon as i'm done reading watchmen about five more times...

There's DC Universe: The Stories of Alan Moore (http://www.amazon.com/DC-Universe-Stories-Alan-Moore/dp/1401209270).

[TS]

Watchmen can't be made into a Y-7 cartoon any more than Barney can be made into an R-rated action star.

I would watch both of these things.

[angryliberal]

There's DC Universe: The Stories of Alan Moore (http://www.amazon.com/DC-Universe-Stories-Alan-Moore/dp/1401209270).

thx! i'll add this to my list of GNs i need to pick up.

[Sano]

Hello, are there any other comics someone could introduce to me on the same level as Watchmen

Haw haw haw -

http://www.newsarama.com/comics/080828-AfterWatchmen.html

[angryliberal]

Haw haw haw -

http://www.newsarama.com/comics/080828-AfterWatchmen.html

nice read! i admit, i started reading after i saw the trailer...i went to like 10 bookstores and comic shops in san diego before i found a copy. i think i'm gonna move right into from hell, as that seems to be one of the more reccomended of moore's titles.

[Zephyranthes]

I dunno, I had issues with 300.

I didn't like the 300 movie, either. It was way longer than it needed to be. They added that entire subplot about Leonidas' wife and some politician and that just dragged it out way too long. The pacing was just messed up. About the only thing that movie did perfectly was nail the colors... Which was to be expected because they hired Lynn Varley. The comic book is just a much better experience, mainly because it's shorter and to the point.

-----

Look, just about anything written by Alan Moore is amazing or worth reading. The lone exception to that is the WildC.A.T.s/Spawn crossover. That one is so bad, I refuse to believe Moore had anything to do with it. I will choose to believe that Todd McFarlane simply held Moore's family hostage so T-Mac could slap Moore's name on some Spawn comics.

I still stand by my previous statement that Watchmen, V for Vendetta, and From Hell are all worthy candidates when discussing "greatest comics of all time." Promethea, too, actually could be up there. Who the hell else would have ever thought of making, let alone successfully execute, a 32-page comic book which you could read and enjoy normally and then you could take out the staples and rearrange the pages into a giant poster that still tells a story about the end of all existence?

[NIKO:ONE]

Haw haw haw -

http://www.newsarama.com/comics/080828-AfterWatchmen.html

Haha, yeah...

After Watchmen i read V for Vendetta and i'm really impressed.
I started reading Y the Last Man on Earth which is entertaining.
I will check out From Hell and Plantery and 100 Bullets next in that order.

I've been reading so many comic books over the past two months that some of my dreams are in dialogue boxes and thought bubbles.

[angryliberal]

so about 3 weeks ago, i went to several bookstores looking for watchmen, and couldn't find it at like 5 different stores. today, while looking for a copy of from hell, i noticed every bookstore in the area had like 50 copies of watchmen. borders had like a whole edncap plus like a whole shelf full of copies...but no one had either batman year one or from hell...

[Amordien]

I will check out From Hell and Plantery and 100 Bullets next in that order.


Is there anyone here who reads 100 Bullets? I tried to find a thread but came up short. Maybe I haven't looked hard enough.

[ViciousSLASH]

Is there anyone here who reads 100 Bullets? I tried to find a thread but came up short. Maybe I haven't looked hard enough.

No. I guess I should stea...pick that up using money soon.

I can't wait till everyone is reading Watchmen and they are like "it was so good blah blah" and I can act like a dick because I read it before it was "cool"

THen I can be like "omg, did you know the one Rorschach chapter is ACTUALLY a Rorschach?"

And then people will be like "Shut up! no way!"

It's my favorite watchmen fact to show people, because the reaction is always the same.

Then I say "yeah, there is a whole bunch of hidden crap" and link them to the annotated watchmen.

I did the exact same thing to DeDesiCanadian and his reaction was right on point.

[DaDesiCanadian]

But I read it before it was cool too. :crybaby::crybaby:

[Zephyranthes]

I think Slashy means that you weren't cool until you read it AND he got to act like a dick.

-----

Most cool people here read 100 Bullets... We're just too cool to start a thread. All those other superhero addicts start feeling threatened and insecure whenever we start a thread about awesome non-superhero genre comics.

Either that, or I'm too damn lazy. Nah, probably just too cool.

[goodm0urning]

I'll take a shot at outlining some reasons to be skeptical about the Watchmen movie. (http://ievolvedintothis.com/)

[ViciousSLASH]

But I read it before it was cool too. :crybaby::crybaby:

Yes, yes you did.

Remember when I told you that the Rorschach issue was actually a Rorschach?

That was awesome.

PS - I'll always remember our time in the cool club.

[NIKO:ONE]

I'll take a shot at outlining some reasons to be skeptical about the Watchmen movie. (http://ievolvedintothis.com/)

I agree with a lot of your points, but still come down to basic conclusion of our times: a lot of people do not read. Will not read. Even with the popularity of the Watchmen comic now which i myself only picked up and started reading comics recently, but before that i have, for the past 8 years, have read a novel or two a month, consistantly, everything from Ulysses, CLockwork Orange, The Last Temptaion of Christ, to books of short stories such as the Last Exit to Brooklyn etc. When these movies get made into films they fail. They loose depth, and the intricatcies that force readers to think way more critically on the subject matter than any 2 hour blockbuster film can achieve. But only really in my eyes do they fail because i read the literature, and devolped the personal relationships and learning that stem from it.

[rikstron]

I got a question for you guys. What are all the morally ambiguous things in the Watchmen? Or if there is a site that has this info, great. I need this info for an assignment. And any help is appreciated.

[goodm0urning]

I got a question for you guys. What are all the morally ambiguous things in the Watchmen? Or if there is a site that has this info, great. I need this info for an assignment. And any help is appreciated.The entire friggin' ending.

[rikstron]

The entire friggin' ending.

Yea, that's the only one I could get on my own. I was just wondering if there was any more.

[goodm0urning]

Well, consider the vigilante activities of all of the characters. There are pros and cons to civilians taking the law into their own hands, but there are also cons. And consider Dr. Manhattan's use of superior physical and mental capabilities for and against normal human beings. Those are both morally ambiguous things.