Watchmen (Spoilers)

[moonmaster]

Veidt couldn't have gotten his comeupins.

The reason why he gets away is because good and evil and justice don't exist in the real world. You can't even say that what he did was good or evil.

 

[Random]

Veidt couldn't have gotten his comeupins.

The reason why he gets away is because good and evil and justice don't exist in the real world. You can't even say that what he did was good or evil.

Well all I know is I want to beat the **** out of him, moral dilemma aside.

 

[Random]

I just quote watchmen in a paper about cloning, awesome

 

[Planet-man]

Read this for the first time over the past week or so. I was not disappointed.

It angers me that this isn't taught in high schools, because it's a far more layered, philosophical and politically important story than most of the books we did read(including several Shakespeares).

I figured out Veidt was behind it at some point, but for far less brilliant reasons(they said earlier in the story that war means money for corporations) than it turned out.

A few problems I have:

- Veidt disintegrating Dr. Manhattan(and Bubastis:cry was as ridiculous a move as Dr. Manhattan later accused it of being. Seriously, why the **** would he even entertain the idea that that would work? Wouldn't it make make much more sense if he just assumed that if he could delay Manhattan's intervention long enough for him to execute the plan, Manhattan would see that it made logical sense and not apprehend him?

- I think the last scene would've been more impactual if that had been the moment we actually find out that that's where Rorschach mailed his journal, rather than just finding out that it might get published after all.

- Why can't Dr. Manhattan stop other people from aging? Nitpick, but they should've addresed that.

Nevertheless, 10/10.

 

[ultimatedjf]

Read this for the first time over the past week or so. I was not disappointed.

Did you buy it? Borrow it from somewhere?

 

[Planet-man]

Did you buy it? Borrow it from somewhere?

It's my dad's GN from when it first came out in the 1980s. I've had it sitting on my shelf for years but was always saving it until I was in the right mood. One night about 10 days ago, I was.

 

[ultimatedjf]

It's my dad's GN from when it first came out in the 1980s. I've had it sitting on my shelf for years but was always saving it until I was in the right mood. One night about 10 days ago, I was.

Another thing we share in common! I have my dad's '80's copy on my shelf, too! :shock:

Is yours the one with the extreme close-up of the bloody smiley on the front (unlike most newer versions)? And that have the written pieces in between issues (like most other versions have, I know)? If so, did you read those?

 

[Planet-man]

Another thing we share in common! I have my dad's '80's copy on my shelf, too! :shock:

Is yours the one with the extreme close-up of the bloody smiley on the front (unlike most newer versions)? And that have the written pieces in between issues (like most other versions have, I know)? If so, did you read those?

The cover of mine is a shot of Blake's broken window and New York buildings(such as the Chrysler building) beyond, the Smileyface pin is tiny, in scale to the window and suspended in the air outside it.

It of course has the written interludes between chapters, and I of course read all of them.

 

[Random]

Read this for the first time over the past week or so. I was not disappointed.

It angers me that this isn't taught in high schools, because it's a far more layered, philosophical and politically important story than most of the books we did read(including several Shakespeares).

SRSLY

I figured out Veidt was behind it at some point, but for far less brilliant reasons(they said earlier in the story that war means money for corporations) than it turned out.

I had a feeling it was him right when we first met him, he seemed the less authentic of the rest, and I knew it was him after the attempted assassination

 

[Random]

from the movie thread

I'm sorry bro, but Veidt got his punishment in full and with interest but, once again like the ending of the story, in a way that not only completely skews your expectations, but forces you to actually think about it. That's what I think at least.

I get the meaning of that and appreciate it, but damn that guy needs a beating. But he clear seemed to enjoy his plan and really came off as a villain, the whole "I felt every death" seemed more like an attempt to make sure Manhattan wasn't going to kill him.

I disagree that Veidt deserves more of a comeuppance.

Not just because he saved the world, but because as he points out, the atrocities he had to commit to do so will always haunt him in the back of his mind and in his dreams.

Adrian Veidt, an ordinary man, sacrificed his own peace of mind and moral well-being because he knew that this had to be done, somebody had to do it, and no one else, not even Dr. Manhattan, a god, would.

All things weighed against eachother, whatever haunts his psyche is proportionate comeuppance enough. Demanding more is just our natural, primal response.

Yep, in fact the whole time I was reading it I kept picture something happening like Rorschach picking up the gun Laurie had then saying

Rorschach : How many?
Veidt: How many what?
Rorschach: How many can you catch?

Then shoot him dead or near death, whether you like the moral ambiguity or not you have to admit that would have been bad ***

 

[Entropy]

from the movie thread


I get the meaning of that and appreciate it, but damn that guy needs a beating. But he clear seemed to enjoy his plan and really came off as a villain, the whole "I felt every death" seemed more like an attempt to make sure Manhattan wasn't going to kill him.

Oh please, that wasn't his punishment; his punishment was that knowing smile on Doctor Manhattan's lips as he disappears. You mean to tell me that didn't give you chills? It was the most cruel action of the entire story.

Yep, in fact the whole time I was reading it I kept picture something happening like Rorschach picking up the gun Laurie had then saying

Rorschach : How many?
Veidt: How many what?
Rorschach: How many can you catch?

Then shoot him dead or near death, whether you like the moral ambiguity or not you have to admit that would have been bad ***

Yes, it would have been .

 

[marvelman]

Yep, in fact the whole time I was reading it I kept picture something happening like Rorschach picking up the gun Laurie had then saying

Rorschach : How many?
Veidt: How many what?
Rorschach: How many can you catch?

Then shoot him dead or near death, whether you like the moral ambiguity or not you have to admit that would have been bad ***

wow that woulda been awesome if it were a little less thought provoking. but SO badass.

 

[Planet-man]

Yep, in fact the whole time I was reading it I kept picture something happening like Rorschach picking up the gun Laurie had then saying

Rorschach : How many?
Veidt: How many what?
Rorschach: How many can you catch?

Then shoot him dead or near death, whether you like the moral ambiguity or not you have to admit that would have been bad ***

It really would have, for a second, on the surface. But aside from the fact that it wouldn't have been right, it wouldn't even have been in-character. Rorschach is an objectivist. He demands accountability for one's actions. I don't think he would want "revenge" on Adrian, or to kill him. In that assignment he wrote when he was a kid he called President Truman a hero for dropping the atom bombs on Japan, because he knew that was the best thing to do. He'd realize it's the same thing here.

Rorschach didn't want Adrian dead. He wanted him publicly known as responsible for it, for better or worse.

 

[Foolsfolly]

Read this for the first time over the past week or so. I was not disappointed.

It angers me that this isn't taught in high schools, because it's a far more layered, philosophical and politically important story than most of the books we did read(including several Shakespeares).

I figured out Veidt was behind it at some point, but for far less brilliant reasons(they said earlier in the story that war means money for corporations) than it turned out.

A few problems I have:

- Veidt disintegrating Dr. Manhattan(and Bubastis:cry was as ridiculous a move as Dr. Manhattan later accused it of being. Seriously, why the **** would he even entertain the idea that that would work? Wouldn't it make make much more sense if he just assumed that if he could delay Manhattan's intervention long enough for him to execute the plan, Manhattan would see that it made logical sense and not apprehend him?

- I think the last scene would've been more impactual if that had been the moment we actually find out that that's where Rorschach mailed his journal, rather than just finding out that it might get published after all.

- Why can't Dr. Manhattan stop other people from aging? Nitpick, but they should've addresed that.

Nevertheless, 10/10.

I think I'll give my thoughts on those questions:

Veidt disintegrating Dr. Manhattan: It was desperation. Why do people still shoot at Superman?

Rorschach's journal- I always took that ending as a way of Moore answering the question written everywhere throughout the story. "Who watches the Watchmen?" The little guy, as always. That idiot man-child can run any story he wants...will he read it? Will he publish it? I like the ending.

Why can't Dr. Manhattan stop other people from aging?- After Vietnam, Manhattan started withdrawing from the human race. He doesn't care about humanity, he could stop aging but the question is, why would he? He doesn't connect with humanity any more.

Oh please, that wasn't his punishment; his punishment was that knowing smile on Doctor Manhattan's lips as he disappears. You mean to tell me that didn't give you chills? It was the most cruel action of the entire story.

Agreed.

"Nothing ever ends." Disappear. And Adrian's left alone, the smartest man in the world and it never dawned on him that his great big fix for the betterment of mankind was temporary and a shallow excuse to kill half a city.

And still, I wonder if Adrian will actually believe it or will he think "No, it'll work..."

 

[Planet-man]

I think I'll give my thoughts on those questions:

Veidt disintegrating Dr. Manhattan: It was desperation. Why do people still shoot at Superman?

Different thing, completely.

a) People might, but not the smartest man alive. Lex Luthor doesn't shoot at Superman, does he?

b) It wasn't an unthought-out, desperation sort of thing. He obviously went through a lot of trouble to build the intrinsic field subtractor.

Rorschach's journal- I always took that ending as a way of Moore answering the question written everywhere throughout the story. "Who watches the Watchmen?" The little guy, as always. That idiot man-child can run any story he wants...will he read it? Will he publish it? I like the ending.

I agree. I just think that the scene would've been more impactual in a story-telling sense if that was when you found out where he'd sent the journal.

Why can't Dr. Manhattan stop other people from aging?- After Vietnam, Manhattan started withdrawing from the human race. He doesn't care about humanity, he could stop aging but the question is, why would he? He doesn't connect with humanity any more.

But did any of the characters ever ask him too? I can't really picture him just saying "no" until later on in the story. Even after he lets Blake get sliced and his impregnatee get killed, and Blake says "you could've done something, but didn't"... I wanted him to ask him to fix his face. It's a minor nitpick, but it's unrealistic.

 

[Random]

Different thing, completely.

a) People might, but not the smartest man alive. Lex Luthor doesn't shoot at Superman, does he?

b) It wasn't an unthought-out, desperation sort of thing. He obviously went through a lot of trouble to build the intrinsic field subtractor.

Well really its the only move against Dr Manhattan he could think of. What else could you do? He even said he wasn't sure if that would even work. It was a desperate move thought out before hand

 

[SSJmole]

Just started reading this and read the first two chapters. I loved the joke at the end of chapter two about Pagliacci the clown. So far I'm enjoying it I really am. Maybe not as much as some comics I've read this year e.g kingdom come. But it's still a good comic so far.


One question. How the hell do you pronounce "Rorschach"? I like the charracter he's probably my favourite in it so far but I have no idea how to pronounce his name and I admit i'm a lazy reader in that I saw and I was like "Ror-s-ch..." "ro-rs.-ch..." then I read now and it's just "Rob" Why? I can pronounce rob :lol:

 

[Random]

Just started reading this and read the first two chapters. I loved the joke at the end of chapter two about Pagliacci the clown. So far I'm enjoying it I really am. Maybe not as much as some comics I've read this year e.g kingdom come. But it's still a good comic so far.


One question. How the hell do you pronounce "Rorschach"? I like the charracter he's probably my favourite in it so far but I have no idea how to pronounce his name and I admit i'm a lazy reader in that I saw and I was like "Ror-s-ch..." "ro-rs.-ch..." then I read now and it's just "Rob" Why? I can pronounce rob :lol:

I asked that in this thread a few months ago, Roar-Shack.

 

[SSJmole]

I asked that in this thread a few months ago, Roar-Shack.

Ah, Thanks dude. I couldn't figure it out.

 

[Hellsbuttmonkey]

Just started reading this and read the first two chapters.

Have we slipped into some parallel universe or something? lol. Glad to see you have finally picked this up!