Who watches the WATCHMEN?

[Edward]

Since the topic is up I was wondering what character most of your guys identified with in the film? For me it was Rorschach, which makes me wonder if I should be getting psychoanalyzed, but I do love the character, and the fact that he refused to accept the false utopia preferring instead to die then be a part of it. Plus he is the only super hero in a hat so you have to love him for that lol.

Rorschach has long been my favourite in the book, and remains so in the film. For years, there has been a certain school of thought among Watchmen fans that insists that it is "wrong" to like Rorschach, that he represents the antithesis of fair trial, due process, etc, not to mention his own petty nationalism and all his bigotries. To my mind, however, this is the genius of the character, that we can find something admirable in his integrity, something human in him generally. It's not always popular to humanise "bad people" - see, for example, some of the criticisms you'll come across if you portray Hitler or Stalin as anything other than a two-dimensional monster - but the point is that human beings are never quite so straightforward as pure good or pure evil..... would that life were that simple!

Interestingly, I warmed to both Night Owl II and The Comedian in the film in a way I didn't in the book.... NO's ordinariness comes out in the film in a way that draws the viewer in, whereas in the book - like Rorschach - I was more focussed on his lack of integrity in starting thins up with Laurie while she was vulnerable and not quite out of her relationshpi with Manhattan. The Comedian's regrets over his past sins comes out much more strongly in the film, I think, which lends him a humanity and gives him a sort of salvation in the eyes of the viewer. I do wonder whether there is any significance in the line "Mother, forgive me" - said twice (as he is thrown through the window to his death, and in flashback to the conversation with Moloch). I wodnered whether it was simply to be taken at face value, or whether there was a religious connotation there - c/f to "Father, forgive me" .... a seeking of some sort of higher forgiveness for his mistakes in life ("I've done some bad thnigs to women and children")? Or maybe the word "mother" was deliberately used to not raise the religious connotations that "father" would have?

I also think it was an improvement that Night Owl saw Rorshach's demise, and was horrified by it. In the book were he is just lying naked with Silk Specter after his partner in Crime Fighting for years dies outside by his current squeeze ex, well showing no emotion over the murder just bothered me. Night Owl is suppose to be the most normal of the group (both Night Owls actually) and his utter lack of emotion after the murder of his friend (or at least former friend) bothered me almost as much as Ozzy's entire plan.

To be fair, my reading of the book was that he did not know of the murder... Manhattan (the amoral swine!) leads them to believe that Rorschach has stormed off into the night - "I don't think he'll reach civilisation" - which is a very different spin on things than "I killed him because he was an inconvenience".... I have always liked that, in passing his journal to the New Frontiersman, Rorschach's truth has the chance to live on..... even if noone will treat it any more seriously than a grand conspiracy theory, given the organ posed to publish it as the film closes.

Another thing that bothered me about the book though was that in his youth, Rorschach had no problem with the dropping of the atomic bomb, because Truman ordered it, and his father like Truman. Yet when Ozzy basically does the same thing on a larger scale Rorschach is outraged. Is this perhaps a plot hole? Something that Moore didn't really flush out correctly at the time? I've tried finding a place were he may answer that question, but I haven't ever noticed it even being asked before.

Interesting..... I hadn't thought of that. It is possibly that it was a minor inconsistency.... the story was not completed prior to the commencement of the original twelve-installment run of the comic book, so some things were already out there early on before they had written the ending. Moore himself has said that he realised only when they were working on issue 4 that Rorschach would have to die, as his integirty would prevent him from co-operating with the Veidt final solution. It's also true, though, that people are inconsistent - how we think as children may not be how we think as adults. Bear in mind also that at that point in his childhood he was still Walter Kovacs - when Veidt's plan is outlined, only Rorschach is left, so one woul naturally expect him to be rather more uncompromising. Another possibility is simple prejudice: Rorschach is anti-gay, anti-communist, far-right leaning.... about the only bigotries we don't see him express are based on race, gender (although there is his disgust at handling women's garments in his job) and religion. (He has been interpreted as an objectivist; I'm not so sure on that. His stance on religion is certainly ambiguous..... but whether agnostic, existentialist or whatever, I love his little spiel on "God didn't make the world like this - we did."). It would seem to me consistent with his attitudes that bombing the Japanese was acceptable as it helped save American lives.... the deaths in NYC he is outraged by were American lives. and yet here I see, perhaps, a further inconsistency. This is, after all, the city which he so reviles, full of "human cockroaches with their herion and child pornography." Perhaps his rage in the end is not only propelled by his sense of integrity, but by a genuine yet suppressed affection for those degraded souls whom he professes to so despise - underneath it all, is he really trying to save others from them, or them from themselves?

 

[Laura Chase]

Another thing that bothered me about the book though was that in his youth, Rorschach had no problem with the dropping of the atomic bomb, because Truman ordered it, and his father like Truman. Yet when Ozzy basically does the same thing on a larger scale Rorschach is outraged. Is this perhaps a plot hole? Something that Moore didn't really flush out correctly at the time? I've tried finding a place were he may answer that question, but I haven't ever noticed it even being asked before.

I strongly doubt that this is a plot hole, don't see it this way and it would be very much unlike Alan Moore. Edward is very right in observing that it's prejudice: Rorschach could have just be viewing all Japanese as crooks.

It would seem to me consistent with his attitudes that bombing the Japanese was acceptable as it helped save American lives...

 

[Tiller]

Rorschach has long been my favourite in the book, and remains so in the film. For years, there has been a certain school of thought among Watchmen fans that insists that it is "wrong" to like Rorschach, that he represents the antithesis of fair trial, due process, etc, not to mention his own petty nationalism and all his bigotries. To my mind, however, this is the genius of the character, that we can find something admirable in his integrity, something human in him generally. It's not always popular to humanise "bad people" - see, for example, some of the criticisms you'll come across if you portray Hitler or Stalin as anything other than a two-dimensional monster - but the point is that human beings are never quite so straightforward as pure good or pure evil..... would that life were that simple!

I think when it comes to Hitler and Stalin it has more to do with it being "to soon", although we are pulling further away from that time period their are those who survived the horrors that both men helped created still alive today (Admittedly all elderly, and the children of the time mild aged). Combine that with the fact that there is hard evidence such as video tape, where one can watch the atrocities committed as if they happened yesterday, and most people simply can't disconnect from those powerful emotions. Others were either raised by, or were Grandchildren of the survivors. So I don't see that changing for awhile. It may even take a few centuries before someone can truly look at it from an objective point of view. The same way today we can look at Ghengis Khan, and admire him for his military skills.

Interestingly, I warmed to both Night Owl II and The Comedian in the film in a way I didn't in the book....

I did myself. Especially with the Comedian as you said. Watching him crying his eyes out, and seeing how this psycho killer even can't bring himself to rationalize the murder of millions shows how truly evil Ozzy's plan is. That is takes the "worlds smartest man" to rationalize the murder of millions of innocent people for "the greater good".

For me when the Comedian turns to Moloch and says "Your the closest thing to a friend I have! What the hell does that say about me?" Really shows that the Comedian is finally realizing all the horrors he has done in the past.

I wodnered whether it was simply to be taken at face value, or whether there was a religious connotation there - c/f to "Father, forgive me" .... a seeking of some sort of higher forgiveness for his mistakes in life ("I've done some bad thnigs to women and children")? Or maybe the word "mother" was deliberately used to not raise the religious connotations that "father" would have?

Perhaps. I took it as a look into his past. To me I figured he was a kid born on the wrong side of the tracks who was raised by a mother who tried to raise him right. Perhaps his is apologizing to her for failing to live up to what she wanted, and for betraying her in some ways. Of course that's pure speculation since we know absolutely nothing about his past, besides the fact that he cleaned up "the docks" when he first started. I saw him as the tough kid with the long suffering mother.

To be fair, my reading of the book was that he did not know of the murder... Manhattan (the amoral swine!) leads them to believe that Rorschach has stormed off into the night - "I don't think he'll reach civilisation" - which is a very different spin on things than "I killed him because he was an inconvenience".... I have always liked that, in passing his journal to the New Frontiersman, Rorschach's truth has the chance to live on..... even if noone will treat it any more seriously than a grand conspiracy theory, given the organ posed to publish it as the film closes.

It could be I haven't read the book in going on ten years now. It was either 99 or 2000 when I read it, and even then it wasn't my copy, but one of my friends. Maybe I'll by it and reread it again. Since then most of my memory has simply been refreshed by Wikipedia articles.

Interesting..... I hadn't thought of that. It is possibly that it was a minor inconsistency.... the story was not completed prior to the commencement of the original twelve-installment run of the comic book, so some things were already out there early on before they had written the ending.

That's true in all fairness it's not like a normal novel where everything was planned out from beginning to end before publishing began. Much as the image of the two gay man together in the restaurant being thrown in "just cause" and not as a sign that Hooded Justice and Captain Metropolis were still alive.The Fate of Hooded Justice and Captain Metropolis

As reported in Rich Johnston's column Lying in the Gutters, when asked about this theory artist Dave Gibbons replied "That wasn't our intention, but it's such an interesting and plausible theory that I'm reluctant to deny it!" Johnston suggested it was fate conspiring against the creators.

Another possibility is simple prejudice: Rorschach is anti-gay, anti-communist, far-right leaning.... about the only bigotries we don't see him express are based on race, gender (although there is his disgust at handling women's garments in his job) and religion. (He has been interpreted as an objectivist; I'm not so sure on that. His stance on religion is certainly ambiguous..... but whether agnostic, existentialist or whatever, I love his little spiel on "God didn't make the world like this - we did.").

In many ways I think Moore combined every aspect he hated about Ditko's characters into Rorschach and put them on high, yet he couldn't bring himself not to be honest about Ditko's underline character trait. Black is black, white is white. As far as Moore's understanding of Objectivism its really hard to say. Did he open up the thousand page plus tome that is Atlas Shrugged, and picked it apart? Did he buy Rand's non-fiction and read it? Or did he read a few things she wrote, and combined it with things he heard others say about Rand? Hard to say.

Rand and Moore are in many ways alike. Insomuch as they both have high opinions of themselves and their ideas, and have a take it or leave it attitude towards people around them. They both are loved and hated by people at the same time for certain things they have said. They are both people who bring extreme emotions in people, and yet almost everyone can find at least one thing about them that they like if they look through their works, well both authors can be very off putting people if you get on their bad sides. I think it reflects in both of their writings, although IMO I think Moore is better at it.

It would seem to me consistent with his attitudes that bombing the Japanese was acceptable as it helped save American lives.... the deaths in NYC he is outraged by were American lives. and yet here I see, perhaps, a further inconsistency. This is, after all, the city which he so reviles, full of "human cockroaches with their herion and child pornography." Perhaps his rage in the end is not only propelled by his sense of integrity, but by a genuine yet suppressed affection for those degraded souls whom he professes to so despise - underneath it all, is he really trying to save others from them, or them from themselves?

For all of Rorschach's faults I do think he is something of an individualist. He never kills anyone unless they commit a crime first, or they attack him. Much like the Comedian he seems to have been the guy born on the wrong side of the track who tried to do the right thing at first, but eventually was just overwhelmed by the culture they were in so they adopted extreme personalities to answer it. The outrage that is Rorschach doesn't become real until the murder of an innocent child. As much he may have hated the people around him, what Ozzy did to them was to him no different then what the pedophile did to the young girl. He killed them outright, and for no other reason then what they have rationalized for themselves. The pedophile did it because "He has problems" well Ozzy did it to make his Utopia real. Either way something in him could no longer tolerate it.

I think the part were he spares his land lady from any punishment, because of what she said about him speaks a lot about his thought process regarding his "black and white" worldview. Although she should have been punished for the lies she told about him, he couldn't bring himself to harm her because she was a mother, and therefor hurting her would hurt her innocent children. Seeing their faces brought that home to him, and seemed to touch him somehow. So he forgives her. The only person in the book that I remember him ever showing any mercy towards.

 

[Tiller]

I strongly doubt that this is a plot hole, don't see it this way and it would be very much unlike Alan Moore. Edward is very right in observing that it's prejudice: Rorschach could have just be viewing all Japanese as crooks.

I'm not so sure. I don't think his love for Truman came because he hated the Japanese. I think it was because it was the only real connection he had with his father, so he put Truman on a pedestal along side his father. Therefor Truman can do no wrong in his mind. I think that was the reason Moore originally wrote it that way.

The extent of his nationalism is hard to really say. He complains about Richard Nixon (who if he was a extreme nationalist should simply be "his President"), and is openly defiant to the law that the federal government has passed (not the state or local government). Hardly something someone who was blind to the national government would do. Although I have no doubt that he would rather be "dead then red" I think he is a man who's idealization of his father is put upon Truman, and therefor Americas past. He seems to be reaching back to the 40's and that (perceived)simpler better time constantly.

As he imagine his father fighting Nazi's in his youth, I think he attempts to emulate this by fighting the evil of his day when he is an adult. I think he is trying to in a way follow his fathers foot steeps (or what he imagines his fathers foot steps to be). To me his is trying to bring about an idealized past, and blames many of the people around him for failing to live up to those standards. To me he seems more of a type of "patriot" then a nationalist. I can't see Rorschach working for the government the way the Comedian did. The Comedian would kill an innocent child if ordered to. I can't see Rorschach doing the same thing. It breaks his black and white view.

He becomes radicalized when he can no longer see the silver lining in humanity. When he could no longer see the good in man Walter Kovacs dies and what remains is the man following in the footsteps of his (perceived) Nazi fighting father, attempting to save the world. You don't feel pity when killing a Nazi. You don't feel pity when killing a murder. A rapist is scum and should be destroyed. Evil can not be tolerated and must be destroyed. Black is black. White is white. Right is right. Wrong is wrong. And nothing can ever change that. There are no grays, only a persons rationalized excuses for their actions. Ozzy may think of himself as a hero, but he is a murder, and people need to know the truth. America and the World is not in the state it is in because of God, but because of what we do. What we allow others to do. We allow black and white to become gray, and this is our problem. To me that is what remains of Walter Kovacs by the time he "becomes" Rorschach completely.

For me that is what makes his views on Truman hard to understand. Perhaps his views simply do change, but to me it seems that is were his complete character comes from it is hard to reconcile. That's my view at least[huh].

 

[Temeti]

The only thing that bothered me about the film was Rorschach's voice.
It was as silly as Christian Bale's two pack a day habit Batman.
Gravelly does not equal tough.

what do u mean? read the Graphic Novel, he's the only one with a rough speech bubble. he's meant to have a raspy monotoned voice, they constantly reference it.
Sorry i'm just a huge fan who was so very very dissapointed by the movie i keep wondering if i saw the same movie as everyone else. i wasn't faithful in my books ( though i did love the opening credits)
hated the soundtrack. or rather (i should rephrase that) the combination of visuals and music. i love everyone of those songs in that movie but apart from "times are a changing" they really didn't work with the footage shown. "halauluah" during a sex scene? that made me cringe and curl up in my seat. i keep hoping that the extra footage in the dvd might make it better though.

 

[Doctor Strange]

Nothing that's adapted as a film is really "faithful to the book", and if it is, it's probably a snooze-fest. Books and movies are two different storytelling media, and adaptations have to change things in the quest to please the general audience, most of whom have not read the book. The best film adapations (The Godfather, The Grapes of Wrath, Gone With The Wind, the Rings films) capture the spirit of the book even while excising subplots and minor characters, telescoping events, changing plot details, etc.

Like I said in my first comment on this thread, I can't imagine anyone making a better adaptation of Watchmen. Yes, it's certainly different from the book, but it captured most of its essential points quite well. If some of the decisions on actors, music, and so on didn't quite work as well as they might have, it's still a remarkable film of an "unfilmable" story.

So I see the director's cut is longer, but still doesn't intercut The Black Freighter. I guess they're gonna make us double-dip for that one in a year or two...

 

[Temeti]

don't get me wrong, i know books have to change when the go to screen cause somethings just don't work in all mediums. I loved both the film and Graphic Novel of V for Vendetta and even though they're vastly different they work out standingly well together as well as standing on their own. things just had to change to work on film. I didn't get that same feeling from Watchmen. I just didn't work for me at all.
I've seen Tales of the Black Feighter as well and really liked that. i want to see the version with the two together just to see how it fits.
Cheers

 

[Doctor Strange]

I saw this at SuperheroHype!...

http://www.superherohype.com/news/watchmennews.php?id=8461

I don't know about the rest of you, but as much as I really want to see the extended-footage director's cut when it comes out this month, I'm going to force myself to wait until the end of the year for the ultra-extended version that includes The Black Freighter. I'm on reduced hours at work, and money is just way too tight right now for unnecessary double-dipping!

 

[MrBern]

DirectorsCut

Theres a theater in NYC playing the DirectorsCut! Its about 3hours long.
I know its available on DVD , but I really wanted to enjoy this on a movie screen.


I was not that familiar with the GraphicNovel, but thoroughly enjoyed both versions of the film. The extra scenes are not fluffy at all. This couldve been a fine miniseries.

 

[Steve]

I didn't see the film at all until they released the DC this week. After reading the novel a couple of months ago I figured I wouldn't even come close to enjoying it without seeing as much of the story as Snyder had filmed.

I loved the graphic novel, the film, not so much. I believe that this is as good a version as could ever be made. Malin Akerman was, in my opinion, miscast, and I'm still undecided as to how I feel about Matthew Goode as Ozymandias. The rest of the cast I thought were just right for their roles--especially Jackie Earl Haley as Rorshach, that was inspired.

I didn't mind the soundtrack so much. "Ride of the Valkyries was beyond cornball, but I think that, overall, the music chosen helped Snyder convey emotional tone that was totally subjective in the comics. They struck me as ironic, sarcastic choices. It might just be me, but I think that Snyder was trying to get across his interpretation of the novel's mood, and at the same time remind the audience that it was set in the 80s, a part of the story that was all to easy to forget whenever Nixon wasn't onscreen.

Overall, the film was good, but simply limited by itself. As a direct translation of the source material, you can only do so much. Perhaps they did too much this time. Definitely not a work of consummate genius; perhaps near-genius.

 

[Edward]

I didn't mind the soundtrack so much. "Ride of the Valkyries was beyond cornball, but I think that, overall, the music chosen helped Snyder convey emotional tone that was totally subjective in the comics.

Actually, I thought it was the perfect choice for a Vietnam sequence.... I presume it was at least in part referencing the use of that music in an iconic scene in Apocalypse Now, in itself based on history: as I understand it, the US Army did indeed play music like that gonig into battle, to get the troops hyped up.... [huh]

Halleluljah in that context didn't bother me.... I just didn't feel any need for a sex scene as long as that. [huh]

 

[pretty faythe]

fftopic:
I love spoofs on anything
[YOUTUBE]<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/G1ZnOVJKnPw&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/G1ZnOVJKnPw&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>[/youtube]

 

[Steve]

Actually, I thought it was the perfect choice for a Vietnam sequence.... I presume it was at least in part referencing the use of that music in an iconic scene in Apocalypse Now, in itself based on history: as I understand it, the US Army did indeed play music like that gonig into battle, to get the troops hyped up.... [huh]

I'll agree that it fit like a charm, and I myself feel like charging the gates of hell when I hear it; but it's one of those moments where I find myself slapping my forehead at a choice so obvious that it distracts from its visual counterpart. When I see Dr. Manhattan establishing himself as a war god over the Veit Cong, I want to be thinking about his narrative, not recalling Apocalypse Now.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Halleluljah in that context didn't bother me.... I just didn't feel any need for a sex scene as long as that. [huh]

i believe that on the blu-ray it is abotu 1.5 times longer than it was in theatres, but i am not sure

 

[Edward]

I'll agree that it fit like a charm, and I myself feel like charging the gates of hell when I hear it; but it's one of those moments where I find myself slapping my forehead at a choice so obvious that it distracts from its visual counterpart. When I see Dr. Manhattan establishing himself as a war god over the Veit Cong, I want to be thinking about his narrative, not recalling Apocalypse Now.

I see where you're coming from. Worked fine for me without distractions, but I know what you mean.

i believe that on the blu-ray it is abotu 1.5 times longer than it was in theatres, but i am not sure

Jinkies. I'd have quite happily given it up entirely in favour of something on the genesis of Rorschach's 'face'.... While it was an essential plot point that they have sex, and specifically that they do it successfully only after getting back into costume and playing super-hero, I didn't actually feel any need to see it.... as I've probably said already above, my attitude to that sort of thing is increasingly one of "guys, if i wanted to see boobs and sex i could have stayed home and looked on the net. Now show me something entertaining!" Maybe I'm just turning into a prude as I get older.... [huh]

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Maybe I'm just turning into a prude as I get older.... [huh]

you are only as old as you feel.

 

[Edward]

you are only as old as you feel.

Today, that means I'm about a hundred and three!

 

[Doctor Strange]

I now have the Director's Cut DVD in hand, but I haven't had a chance to watch it yet (I'm busy working my way through the endless documentary material on the two-disk Benjamin Button, which came in the same Amazon order).

I decided that I wanted this one rather than the forthcoming five-disk version. Three things convinced me: 1 - I want to see it now! 2 - five disks is definitely overkill, both in terms of coverage and what it's gonna cost. 3 - while I haven't yet seen Tales of the Black Freighter, my kids have, and their take was that while it's good to watch once, it's too gruesome for repeat viewings - much more unpleasant to see than to imagine - so I'm guessing that watching the main story with Black Freighter intercut actually isn't something I'd be likely to do very much.

Anyway, I'll comment on how the longer version plays in the next few days...

 

[Edward]

I think I'm gonig to compromise by buying this one on DVD, and the longer version on Blu-Ray... lol

 

[Doctor Strange]

Well, not surprisingly, I like the longer Director's Cut a lot. I admit that the film's pacing is much tighter, and arguably "better", on the original theatrical cut, but I liked having the additions.

The biggest ones are Rorschach encountering the police at Blake's apartment, Laurie being held by the police and busting out, and Hollis's death at the hands of the gang (preceeded by a brief but poignant phone call between him and Sally). Most of the other additions are quite brief - just an extra shot or two here and there, or a couple of extra lines of dialogue. And the love scene is indeed a bit more explicit, but it doesn't really seem longer - unless they actually used another whole verse of "Hallelujah" in this version. I couldn't tell off hand.

But the second disc of extra features is quite disappointing. A by-the-numbers documentary about the Watchmen book with all the expected talking heads (except Alan Moore, and nobody expects him!), and a bunch of mini-docs (under five minutes apiece) that don't really add up to much. My son was happy to download the supplied theatrical-cut digital copy to his laptop, but I personally have zero interest in watching any movie on a computer... Also, the lack of any audio commentary on the feature is pretty disappointing. (I know: it's on the Blu-Ray and will be on the Ultimate set.)

So, I definitely prefer the Director's Cut, though I'm not sure that it's actually "better" for being 25 minutes longer... It surely won't change anybody's mind: if you didn't like the original film, you won't like the longer version.