Daft Posted March 8, 2009 Posted March 8, 2009 The film is out so this is the ideal chance to discuss WATCHMEN. Primarily the comic, NOT the movie. There are most likely MAJOR spoilers here. I'm going to start with the question, Was Veidt right to do what he did? Is he a narcassistic emotionless tool? (He doesn't even cry at his parents funeral, he just sits there chewing grass) Does he really protect the world or is he a psychopath who cronically inflates his own ego? In the end, is Veidt a bigger "Comedian" than Blake?
Shorty Posted March 8, 2009 Posted March 8, 2009 To ignore your question and summarise my opinion quickly, I thought Watchmen was great. It was a faithful adaptation in many respects, recreating some of the scenes with absolute perfection, especially the Rorschach's final scene. At the same time, it omitted many important aspects which took away from the overall atmosphere. The decision to not copy the book in a constant reference to the people of the street in New York and their constant sense of impending doom meant that you didn't have quite the same feeling of 'what the hell is this leading up to?' as you did in the book. However it worked perfectly well as a film. Perhaps it should've detached itself even more. I didn't like the change to the ending, making it Dr. Manhattan's fault rather than the fault of 'aliens'. I can understand that aliens are less plausible to the movie going audience in this day and age, but should that matter around blue demi-gods, Superheroes and genetically modified tigers? I watched it on a very large screen and found myself a little uncomfortable with all the pen0r and porno. But whatever The feeling and gloss (and costumes) of the whole film screamed expensive, which took away from the grimy grey feeling that was a big part of the comic. But it's understandable, the alternative wouldn't have brought in the masses the way this did. tl;dr - I loved the comic book and loved this film, for different reasons. Even if the story has recieved this shiny gloss and skipped a lot of crucial atmosphere building moments, it was a tight adaptation with great visuals and brilliant acting. The casting of Rorschach was perfection.
jayseven Posted March 8, 2009 Posted March 8, 2009 Dammit. I just posted about this in the film thread and everything! Stupid broken internet, not automatically refreshing like something from teh future, or something. He was right. In a sense - he wasn't a comedian because the joke was on hi-- oh, right, yeah! That's the joke! lol. I mean, what would people give for eternal peace on earth? Eternal. What is the price you are willing to pay for an endless Heaven? If you were the smartest person on earth, to boot! Can you really say that what he thought he was doing was just an opinion? The real parralel, however it is spelt, is to be drawn with all of the characters. They're all jokes; imitations of signature american superheroes, presidents wanting to be a hero (so much that he went looking for 'crime'), lives of utter normalicy (like the rest of us) that bring them to feel the need to act out and be superior to (the rest of us) and the, tbh, glamourising and fetishising of rape (in the movie)... This was going somewhere at some point. Watchmen is cool now. That's the main story. When it was made it was laughable. People were probably beaten up by bigger kids (age anon) and now everyone's feeling ever so bad for the now-archaic-and-politically-unfair opinions of comic books that they once had, and they're feeling sorry for the fact that books are going down the pan (thus now they know how 'graphic novel' [comic book] fans have been feeling for the last three decades) -- but Watchmen is not some sort of bible. It is flawed, vaguely dated and annoyingly self-aware of the extremes 'irony' can veil a spirallic loop. That was going somewhere at some point, too.
chairdriver Posted March 8, 2009 Posted March 8, 2009 I hated Veidt as a character. But then, I hated every character in the book. Literally every character annoyed me. But thats why its so lovely.
Mundi Posted March 8, 2009 Posted March 8, 2009 The morality of it is hard too side with on one hand with have the "The end justify´s the means" but we still have too question how far can we go. I think what happen in the book as a whole is a joke like the comedian described. If you look at the very last page you have the scene where the guy finds Rorsarch´s diary and the Doomsday clock striking midnight which too me means that in the end everything crumbled.. I say that what Veidt did was just gave the world a glimpse at world peace before everything started tearing itself apart after, which is the punchline of the joke. tl;dr Veidt didn´t make the joke he was a part of it. Also fans of the magnificent opening credits, it´s been released online to watch legally by the company who made it. http://www.pinkkryptonite.com/2009/03/video_watchmen_opening_credits.html I loved in the first frame of the opening credits you can see that it happens outside the "Gotham Opera House" and the current showing is "The Bat-man" Which means the Nite-Owl I saved Bruce Waynes parents :Þ
chairdriver Posted March 8, 2009 Posted March 8, 2009 Watchmen is cool now. That's the main story. When it was made it was laughable. People were probably beaten up by bigger kids (age anon) and now everyone's feeling ever so bad for the now-archaic-and-politically-unfair opinions of comic books that they once had, and they're feeling sorry for the fact that books are going down the pan (thus now they know how 'graphic novel' [comic book] fans have been feeling for the last three decades) -- but Watchmen is not some sort of bible. It is flawed, vaguely dated and annoyingly self-aware of the extremes 'irony' can veil a spirallic loop. But the fact of the matter is that Watchmen revolutionised how comics were written. It was like how Citizen Kane was one of the first good films. Watchmen has no thought bubbles. No action lines. No writers comments to keep the reader informed.
Shorty Posted March 8, 2009 Posted March 8, 2009 Exactly, Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns were the comic books that made adults go "wow, these aren't just corny caption-fests for kids". Without it comics and comic book movies would probably be in a completely different place right now.
Daft Posted March 8, 2009 Author Posted March 8, 2009 Watchmen is cool now. That's the main story. When it was made it was laughable. That's not true. Granted the film made me actually finally get off my arse and read it but I've known about it for ages because I know a lot of people who got, and loved it, when it first came out. My sister even has all twelve original issues in pristine condition.
chairdriver Posted March 8, 2009 Posted March 8, 2009 And I still love the fact that Veidt's ploy is all pointless, because at the end the newspaper prints Rorschach's diary. Literally a lovely thing to include at the end.
Dan_Dare Posted March 8, 2009 Posted March 8, 2009 And I still love the fact that Veidt's ploy is all pointless, because at the end the newspaper prints Rorschach's diary. Literally a lovely thing to include at the end. I don't take that ending as set in stone myself. The composition of the frame hints at it, but doesn't confirm. Also, there's no certainty that the story would be believed anyway.
Daft Posted March 8, 2009 Author Posted March 8, 2009 I don't take that ending as set in stone myself. The composition of the frame hints at it, but doesn't confirm. Also, there's no certainty that the story would be believed anyway. I don't know. The mass of blood spreading down the facing page and the clock hitting midnight seems to be a pretty massive nod.
Ashley Posted March 8, 2009 Posted March 8, 2009 Yeah to be fair how credible is the diary of someone who was recently arrested for murder (granted framed for it but he is a murderer) and undergoing psychiatric treatment. If the New Frontiersman was really determined they could look into it but could you really get fair against one of the world's biggest corporations, if not the world's biggest, being run by the world's smartest man. It may cause a disturbance, I doubt it'll cause a revolution.
Cube Posted March 8, 2009 Posted March 8, 2009 I'll watch it at some point. I'll be extremely surprised if it isn't terrible.
Mundi Posted March 8, 2009 Posted March 8, 2009 What happens after the ending is of course speculative but I think that in the bigger picture, despite having an omnipotent being shown as the greatest threat to mankind Veidt´s plan only gave us some more time before we start killing each other again, only this time, on a grander scale. At least that is what I interpret the ending (the very last page) as.
Daft Posted March 8, 2009 Author Posted March 8, 2009 Just to bring it back to my question, assuming that the world does live happily ever after, are Ozymandias' actions justified? I'm thinking he is completely egotistical.
Ashley Posted March 8, 2009 Posted March 8, 2009 If the world is lives in peace forever I'd say yes. Its no different to what God did with the great flood. (actually thinking about it, it is different but still, its the kinda thing the wrathful old testament God would have done)
Daft Posted March 8, 2009 Author Posted March 8, 2009 If the world is lives in peace forever I'd say yes. Its no different to what God did with the great flood. Cos if God did it, it's alright... The issue isn't about the maths, why does the smartest man in the world come up with this insane plan? Why does he think the world can only be saved by killing millions? He positions himself as a humanitarian but doesn't even consider the millions of people he kills. His gestures of rationalisation are just his psychopathic attempt to justify himself. Yeah, in planning he does think about the cold cost of human lives but what value does that thought have when the action has not happened? Who is he thinking about then? He even asks Jon, "I did the right thing, didn't I? It all worked out in the end." I think he is a rampant psychopath. What child dubs down his grades so as to not arise suspicion? Who knows, he might have even had a hand in his parent's death. It's never mentioned how they died. He doesn't even react at their funeral. How do you think Rorschach and Nite Owl would have responded had he not set the bomb off when they arrived? Obviously Rorschach would have tried to stop him but do you think Nite Owl and Silk Spectre II would have though, 'You know Adrian, I think you're on to something!'. The only reason the world is on the brink of nuclear Armageddon is because he made Jon go to Mars. He created a solution to a non-existent problem. Veidt is a grade A psycho.
Oxigen_Waste Posted March 8, 2009 Posted March 8, 2009 Na. Veidt is a golden god. Sure, he killed a few millions... but in doing so he saved every other single living being on earth. That's psycho? Presented with such a possibility, I wouldn't imagine choosing any other alternative. (I might, but that's me... I'm the real psycho, here, since I would actually consider it a good thing if the whole of humanity was wiped out).
Daft Posted March 8, 2009 Author Posted March 8, 2009 Na. Veidt is a golden god. Sure, he killed a few millions... but in doing so he saved every other single living being on earth. That's psycho? Presented with such a possibility, I wouldn't imagine choosing any other alternative. (I might, but that's me... I'm the real psycho, here, since I would actually consider it a good thing if the whole of humanity was wiped out). Well that bring me to another point, why exactly does humanity deserve to exist?
Oxigen_Waste Posted March 8, 2009 Posted March 8, 2009 Well that bring me to another point, why exactly does humanity deserve to exist? Are you asking me? It doesn't. And that's the only way I can answer that, because, like agent Smith said... we're a virus.
jayseven Posted March 8, 2009 Posted March 8, 2009 That's just a useless question, though. Why do we deserve to exist? You've gone from calling a man a psycho for killing millions of people to questioning our right to be alive anyway! We deserve to exist because we smarted our way here, via the school of evolution. Blurg.
Daft Posted March 8, 2009 Author Posted March 8, 2009 Are you asking me? It doesn't.And that's the only way I can answer that, because, like agent Smith said... we're a virus. Na, rhetorical question. That's just a useless question, though. Why do we deserve to exist? You've gone from calling a man a psycho for killing millions of people to questioning our right to be alive anyway! We deserve to exist because we smarted our way here, via the school of evolution. Blurg. Wrong word, I should have said 'survive'. We smarted our way here, and we'll blow ourselves to hell. Easy come, easy go.
Paj! Posted March 8, 2009 Posted March 8, 2009 Veidt is like an interesting version of Ra's Al Ghul. Eradication of a few = Unification/benefit of many. In lots of ways I agree with the outcome, as I don't see Rorscach's diary affecting much of anything in the long run. Everyone's happy la la. Of course, it's wrong technically. But it's moral and ethically question that is lovely to ponder in any case. ----- The soundtrack was rubbish. None of the songs fitted. Except Dylan.
Daft Posted March 8, 2009 Author Posted March 8, 2009 Eradication of a few = Unification/benefit of many. In lots of ways I agree with the outcome, as I don't see Rorscach's diary affecting much of anything in the long run. Everyone's happy la la. I think that the clock hitting midnight, with the blood and all, indicates that in the long run Veidt did nothing except kill 3 million. I like to think that in the end Rorschach got his way. That's definitely open for interpretation though.
Recommended Posts