PDA

View Full Version : Watchmen [Graphic Novel]


Iron Past
02-09-2009, 10:30 PM
Okay, I know it's been mentioned here before, but still, there's not really a thread devoted to it (that I found). With the impending movie and recommendations, I picked up a hard-cover copy from Barnes and Nobles this weekend and have been reading it almost nonstop.

All I can say is holy crap is it good, and I've only been through the first three chapters. The exposition is great, and the characterization of the heroes, complete with the situations they are placed in, is amazing. Considering it deals with alternate history, it ages well also (well, except for the clothes and hair styles :p). I look foward to delving deeper into the plot after the main players are more fleshed out, and completely recommend it to anyone who has a passing interest in comics or the movie, which looks surprisingly faithful to the source material. :)

By the way, $26 off Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Watchmen-Alan-Moore/dp/1401219268/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234239455&sr=8-1). ;)

Disgustipated
02-09-2009, 10:35 PM
Get the Absolute Edition... or bust. It stands on one of my shelves, next to my 28" monitor. It is glorious.

Iron Past
02-09-2009, 10:46 PM
Get the Absolute Edition... or bust. It stands on one of my shelves, next to my 28" monitor. It is glorious.

What does it contain that the version I have doesn't? I'm curious, but I'll probably wait for a little bit.

Disgustipated
02-09-2009, 10:49 PM
What does it contain that the version I have doesn't? I'm curious, but I'll probably wait for a little bit.

http://www.amazon.com/Watchmen-Absolute-Alan-Moore/dp/1401207138/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234241311&sr=8-2


So why buy the Absolute Edition?

Because it is the most gorgeous presentation of the story to date. First off, it's BIG. This edition reminds me of the sheer pleasure I once had as a kid reading oversized editions. Remember the giant-sized reprints of first editions or that humongous "Superman vs. Spider-Man?" It isn't quite that big and unwieldy, but it's big and Dave Gibbons' beautiful artwork and genious panel to panel drama is so much more enjoyable in this format. The panel backgrounds, as any fan knows, are filled with clues and details that are richer than has ever been done before or since in the medium. The backgrounds are so much more enjoyable at this size.

But the real star of this new edition is the amazing John Higgins. John Higgins is the colorist. The comic book medium has always placed the most limitations on the colorist who has had to deal with the realities of the printing process, sacrificing in every panel, trying to make dramatic and reproducible choices.

With this edition, Higgins has been able to do what was not possible when the original series was presented. The colors here are absolutely beautiful to behold. The original color schemes and the drama they invoked are here, but far smoother and more intense.

One of the most popular aspects of the story is the internal comic drama "Tales of the Black Freighter," a pirate comic that comments on the larger story. John Higgins colors these panels in the old school process of the golden age, using those old printing limitations to his advantage and making the Black Freighter panels a nostalgic delight while advancing the story in a new way. Bravo, Mr. Higgins! You have proven your worth and demonstrated why Watchmen is a graphic novel by Alan Moore, Dave Gibbons, and John Higgins. It was a delight to see your name on the spine where it has belonged all along.

This Absolute Edition of Watchmen is the most glorious version of this brilliant work. This is the ultimate proof that sequential art stories can be legitimate literature.

The book also offers wonderful material illustrating the fleshing out of the story all those years ago and how the storytellers began with the old Charleton characters only to evolve them into new characters with more depth and dimension than their inspirations.

There are also several pages of script. Anyone who has ever seen a comic book script will be amazed by the density of Alan Moore describing a single panel. One feels like quite the insider to read these pages. Each panel description reads as if an impossibly picky art collector were writing a detailed letter to Dave Gibbons to commission a painting and told him everything he wanted in a great empassioned gush. And Mr. Gibbons delivered time after time, giving far more than even Moore had asked. Wow! This is how it's done, ladies and gentlemen.

This is the greatest version of the greatest story ever told in the history of this beautiful, yet underrated medium. A must for any collector. A must for any lover of great art. A must for any lover of great storytelling.

Iron Past
02-09-2009, 10:57 PM
Well, damn, I already bought this one. Hm, I wonder what their return policy is? This has the recolored panels, but none of the other stuff, so obviously I want it now.

Edit: OOh, I can still return it. Off to B&N I go! Well, tomorrow, anyway.

DeathtollWRX
02-09-2009, 11:07 PM
Hey I have the graphic novel and I am willing to ship it to you one of you guys if you pay for shipping. I have read through it twice and it's amazing. PM me if your interested. Once you read it pass it to the next Cogger.

muddi900
02-10-2009, 01:07 AM
I am so fucking gay for the absolute edition. I have no money :(

Whunpo
02-10-2009, 01:18 AM
Watchmen gets better every time I read it. I find more symbolism, meaning and thought every time I open the pages. Glorious.
And I REALLY want the absolute edition. It looks incredible.

Disgustipated
02-10-2009, 01:37 AM
^
|
|
|

In reply to the posters above...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v190/TOBuploads/uliekwatchmen.jpg

Kelegacy
02-10-2009, 06:56 AM
I keep forgetting to buy this. I had a giftcard and went to B&N over the weekend and bought Rules of Attraction by B.E.E instead. It's great, but I keep meaning to buy Watchmen. Never read it.

muddi900
02-10-2009, 07:10 AM
The last panel on page 4 is the greatest panel in the history of comics. That's when you realize that the rereading is going to be far more awesome than the first time.

Iron Past
02-11-2009, 03:00 PM
My Absolute Edition came today (after I returned the other one and overnighted this for the hell of it--still cheaper than retail) and hot damn is that slick. I could fucking hate Watchmen and still love that package.

The last panel on page 4 is the greatest panel in the history of comics. That's when you realize that the rereading is going to be far more awesome than the first time.

You mean the one where the cops walk past the redhead (yes, I know who he is)? Does that become infused with more meaning later in the story?

By the way, I just got done with Mr. Manhattan's chapter where he reminisces about the past. While I felt that it expanded on the background and laid the path for the rest of the story very well, I thought it was a little bland and almost hard to follow. Of course, I'm assuming this was done as a reflection of his character.

roboninja
02-11-2009, 03:07 PM
I have just started re-reading Watchmen for the second time. So awesome. I now want that Absolute edition...

Mdot
02-11-2009, 03:17 PM
Read it for the first time in January. Now I hate myself for waiting so long to read it. Such an awesome story.

Primus
02-11-2009, 03:26 PM
Got it a bit before the movie started generating hype, on a whim. Truly a great representation of the medium. It deserves all the hype and acclaim in my humble opinion.

There is a lot of symbolism and it really blurs the line as far as what a hero and villian are.

Also, if go to the official site and check out the little monologue clips for each character. So awesome!

EDIT: Also I love my Absolute Edition!

Iron Past
02-11-2009, 04:26 PM
Does anyone know if the recently released hard cover edition has the recolored panels in it?

If you're referring to the one at the end of the link in the OP, then yes, it does. Though it's obviously not over-sized. Has a new dust cover, too.

Iron Past
02-12-2009, 07:12 AM
I actually prefer to get a regular sized copy. The only over-sized I would like to own is Kingdom Come, the others I'm not so hot in the pants to get. I know, I must be crazy.

Nah. I think this and the Planet Hulk hardcover are the only over-sized editions I own, and they can get a little unwieldy at times, though Watchmen is smaller and not so bad. The smaller one has glossy pages, too, which I prefer over the paper ones (I always feel like I'm going to rip them).

Edit: I don't know what I'm thinking. Planet Hulk is smaller but I think wider. I suppose Watchmen is just better proportioned for me.

TheFlyingOrc
02-12-2009, 12:11 PM
By the way, I just got done with Mr. Manhattan's chapter where he reminisces about the past. While I felt that it expanded on the background and laid the path for the rest of the story very well, I thought it was a little bland and almost hard to follow. Of course, I'm assuming this was done as a reflection of his character.

Couldn't disagree more. That chapter is what got me hooked.

Ancalagon
02-12-2009, 01:04 PM
Couldn't disagree more. That chapter is what got me hooked.

Agreed. That was one thing that made me realize.... well how artfully the story is told, how he almost makes you believe that, to Manhattan, everything really is happening at once.

Mr. Murphy
02-12-2009, 01:13 PM
Couldn't disagree more. That chapter is what got me hooked.

Actually, I still remember the first time I read that chapter and how it blew my mind a little bit. I sat down and tried to understand what it would be like to be Manhattan. Beautifully written.

Matthias
02-12-2009, 01:13 PM
...I really want the Absolute edition. I've read the first few chapters of the original, and the story has hooked me. I just don't think I can justify $60 for a comic book to my parents though, even with my birthday looming.

Bone
02-12-2009, 01:31 PM
I love the backstory and especially the character studies in the Absolute edition. Showing how they originally meant to resurrect an ancient 1950's comic line, but, after being told they couldn't, they simply modified the original characters into something closely resembling each one. Such as the Question, who is essentially Rorschach but with a black question mark on his face.

roboninja
02-12-2009, 01:33 PM
I love the backstory and especially the character studies in the Absolute edition. Showing how they originally meant to resurrect an ancient 1950's comic line, but, after being told they couldn't, they simply modified the original characters into something closely resembling each one. Such as the Question, who is essentially Rorschach but with a black question mark on his face.

Stop tempting me!

Iron Past
02-12-2009, 03:40 PM
Now, now, I didn't say I didn't like the chapter. I said the detached way it was told and the multiple stories it tries to tell at once was a reflection of DR. Manhattan's character. But, in reality, I think it went on a page or two too long.

Personally, the way the characters are portrayed at the beginning and the ways the their situations mirror their personalities was what hooked me and made me sit up and pay attention. Such as Rorschach's alter-ego being a person on the street that is waving around that sign, or Dr. Manhattan, who has distanced himself so far from those around him he can't even concentrate on his girlfriend leaving him, suddenly being forced into exile, with the little bit of contact he had causing those people to have cancer.

PathMaster
02-12-2009, 03:49 PM
Terrific read and reminds to reread it soon.

TheFlyingOrc
02-12-2009, 04:22 PM
Now, now, I didn't say I didn't like the chapter. I said the detached way it was told and the multiple stories it tries to tell at once was a reflection of DR. Manhattan's character. But, in reality, I think it went on a page or two too long.

Personally, the way the characters are portrayed at the beginning and the ways the their situations mirror their personalities was what hooked me and made me sit up and pay attention. Such as Rorschach's alter-ego being a person on the street that is waving around that sign, or Dr. Manhattan, who has distanced himself so far from those around him he can't even concentrate on his girlfriend leaving him, suddenly being forced into exile, with the little bit of contact he had causing those people to have cancer.

You really want to notice some depth, note how differently Rorschach talks in the flashbacks.

The chapter where they explain what made Rorschach so messed up explains it perfectly, too.

Whenever you finally finish the book, make sure to tell us about it within 35 minutes or so.

Bone
02-12-2009, 05:45 PM
or Dr. Manhattan, who has distanced himself so far from those around him he can't even concentrate on his girlfriend leaving him, suddenly being forced into exile, with the little bit of contact he had causing those people to have cancer.
That's one thing I didn't get. Wouldn't Manhattan have known that it was a setup, and it wasn't him who gave those people cancer? I mean he had access to the whole timeline and all. I guess it could have been more of Veidt's misdirection. But it's pretty significant.

Regardless, I thought the way that chapter was told was completely brilliant and heartbreaking! "She's next to me in bed. She's leaving me. The picture is hitting the ground. I'm on Mars" (paraphrased of course) was an awesome way to show how every new moment for him is like reminiscing about the past.

Iron Past
02-12-2009, 06:12 PM
I haven't read far enough, but so far I get the impression that Manhattan only has the precognitive ability in regards to his personal experiences, which doesn't necessarily mean he knows why something's happening. I could be completely wrong, though. I think I'm going to read some more right now.

Also, I think I've read enough comics and played enough games that my brain automatically just makes crap up when there's a plot hole. :)

axion
02-12-2009, 06:14 PM
He's also powerless to change anything, everything will happen no matter if he knows or not.

zarathstra
02-12-2009, 06:29 PM
I reread it a couple weeks ago, and it was just as aweoms eas I remember. Reading this thread makes me want to read it again, but I lent out my copy to a friend. Dammit!

crazyD
02-12-2009, 06:31 PM
I thought it was because, at this point in his life, he was more an observer than actor. Even when he knows what is coming in the future, he makes little effort to change what is "supposed" to happen.

Whunpo
02-13-2009, 02:34 AM
That's one thing I didn't get. Wouldn't Manhattan have known that it was a setup, and it wasn't him who gave those people cancer? I mean he had access to the whole timeline and all. I guess it could have been more of Veidt's misdirection. But it's pretty significant.

See, that's the thing. He did know. However, Manhattan doesn't control what happens. He knows what's going to happen, but he can't do anything to change it.

Bone
02-13-2009, 03:23 AM
Yeah, you're all right. He knows his girl is going to break up with him, knows Laurie's going to cry, etc. Just has to let it flow.

Whunpo
02-13-2009, 03:35 AM
Who does everyone think is their favorite character? Coolest, most interesting, whatever, just favorite.
For me: The Comedian. It's hard for me to explain exactly why, but I guess I kind of identify with his way of thought.

Iron Past
02-13-2009, 06:20 AM
Who does everyone think is their favorite character? Coolest, most interesting, whatever, just favorite.

Despite him being balls-out crazy, so far it's Rorschach. I'm reading VI, where he's talking to the therapist, and he's obviously very intelligent. Instead of him turning psychotic tendencies on innocent people, he turns them on people who 'deserve' it. Though, the Punisher is one of my favorite characters also, so go figure. He makes me laugh, too.

zarathstra
02-13-2009, 07:18 AM
Who does everyone think is their favorite character? Coolest, most interesting, whatever, just favorite.
For me: The Comedian. It's hard for me to explain exactly why, but I guess I kind of identify with his way of thought.

I think Nite Owl. He seems like a decent, normal(ish) guy who's stuck in the middle of all these crazy people. I can relate.

Mr. Murphy
02-13-2009, 07:22 AM
Now, now, I didn't say I didn't like the chapter. I said the detached way it was told and the multiple stories it tries to tell at once was a reflection of DR. Manhattan's character. But, in reality, I think it went on a page or two too long.

Personally, the way the characters are portrayed at the beginning and the ways the their situations mirror their personalities was what hooked me and made me sit up and pay attention. Such as Rorschach's alter-ego being [something that is a spoiler], or Dr. Manhattan, who has distanced himself so far from those around him he can't even concentrate on his girlfriend leaving him, suddenly being forced into exile, with the little bit of contact he had causing those people to have cancer.

I think you could go ahead and spoiler Rorschach's identity there too, I think that was a pretty big reveal.

Also my favorite character is Rorschach, more for what he is as a character than who he is. I disagree with his ideologies and mentality, but for a vigilante to be portrayed as that kind of guy was simultaneously obvious, perfect, and groundbreakingly original.

Iron Past
02-13-2009, 04:09 PM
Well, I spoilered it, but I'm not sure how anyone could miss that. In fact, when I wrote that post I was no where near the 'reveal.' But I don't want to ruin it for anyone else. :)

muddi900
02-14-2009, 07:29 AM
You mean the one where the cops walk past the redhead (yes, I know who he is)? Does that become infused with more meaning later in the story?




Well It means a lot if you found it by reading the story and not the intrawebs. Especially when the cop says "Nothing, just a shiver." It's a wink to all the re-readers.

That's one thing I didn't get. Wouldn't Manhattan have known that it was a setup, and it wasn't him who gave those people cancer? I mean he had access to the whole timeline and all. I guess it could have been more of Veidt's misdirection. But it's pretty significant.

Regardless, I thought the way that chapter was told was completely brilliant and heartbreaking! "She's next to me in bed. She's leaving me. The picture is hitting the ground. I'm on Mars" (paraphrased of course) was an awesome way to show how every new moment for him is like reminiscing about the past.


You just answered your question. He only exists in all space-time. Just like we cannot "change" the space around us, he can't change the time. Only live through it.

Froghourt
02-15-2009, 02:46 PM
I hate you guys!

I really want that absolute edition, but I already have the paperback version and I can't justify the purchase.

I HATE YOU!

muddi900
02-16-2009, 12:25 AM
We ride in the same boat. It's especially hurtful to me as it will cost me my house to get it delivered here!

Variable Gear
02-16-2009, 01:16 AM
I'm rereading the book now, and I remember some sort of confusion surrounding Adrian Veidt near the end of the story, but I can't remember any specifics. Did anyone make sense Ozymandias' involvement?

axion
02-16-2009, 01:20 AM
There's really no confusion if you read it I would think, it's a pretty major part of the plot.
He is responsible for everything, and is masterminded the whole thing in order to bring about world peace.

mister slim
02-16-2009, 01:59 AM
I love the Absolute editions. If you haven't picked up Watchmen yet, definitely grab the Absolute version. They're a little bigger, which is nice, but the real difference is the printing quality. I still remember reading Absolute Planetary for the first time and seeing how much detail John Cassaday was investing in every facial expression.
I keep forgetting to buy this. I had a giftcard and went to B&N over the weekend and bought Rules of Attraction by B.E.E instead. It's great, but I keep meaning to buy Watchmen. Never read it.

Ha! I went to the college Rules of Attraction is based on.

I think Nite Owl. He seems like a decent, normal(ish) guy who's stuck in the middle of all these crazy people. I can relate.

I love the back up essay where he writes an piece on ornithology that explains why he's a bit crazy.

Bone
02-16-2009, 09:43 AM
But wasn't the essay written by Nite Owl I? I believe it was. He mentions how a younger man has taken up his costume and name.

crazyD
02-16-2009, 10:01 AM
There is a separate essay by Nite Owl 2, just something he wrote about owls for some ornithology journal.

Wasson_
02-16-2009, 10:52 AM
Couldn't disagree more. That chapter is what got me hooked.


I also feel that way about "his" chapter. Though I'm not done reading it yet, just about half-way through. I'm quite pleased that I purchased this. The movie has quite a narrative to live up to.

Mr. Murphy
02-16-2009, 10:57 AM
I hate you guys!

I really want that absolute edition, but I already have the paperback version and I can't justify the purchase.

I HATE YOU!

Sell your paperback edition here, or on eBay. Or have a CoG giveaway. Then you won't have it anymore and you'll HAVE to by the AE!

Froghourt
02-16-2009, 11:02 AM
Sell your paperback edition here, or on eBay. Or have a CoG giveaway. Then you won't have it anymore and you'll HAVE to by the AE!

Damn you Murphy you are making too much sense!

I AM SO CONFLICTED!

Mr. Murphy
02-16-2009, 12:11 PM
Damn you Murphy you are making too much sense!

I AM SO CONFLICTED!

Giveaways make you popular. Your breath will smell better, your acne will clear up and girls will talk to you on the bus.

Froghourt
02-16-2009, 12:46 PM
Well when you put it that way...

Realistically though, a giveaway could work but the shipping would be rather expensive, especially if I had to send it outside the EU. I guess I could limit it to Europe, but that really doesn't seem fair.

muddi900
02-16-2009, 01:06 PM
Damn you Murphy you are making too much sense!

I AM SO CONFLICTED!

Coupled with your avatar, it feels like Moore himself is saying that. Its damn funny.

Variable Gear
02-22-2009, 05:01 PM
I'm nearing the end, and I just love the variety of sources that the reader interacts with. Newspaper clippings, Veidt's internal memo's, Mason's book, "Under the Hood," Rorschach's essays, Tales of the Black Freighter, and on and on. It's just incredible how well everything fits together, how much detail was spent making sure that concurrent explanations sync up at all the right times. I'm more impressed than I was when I originally read Watchmen.

Iron Past
02-22-2009, 10:51 PM
Just finished! How extremely interesting.

How far can you go for the greater good and be justified in doing so? It obviously drew inspiration from dropping the bombs (there were two) to end the war, and that's something I'm always conflicted about as well. For the record, I don't really believe we were justified in doing so (though a more strategic strike would have been different), but can accept what it brought about. I also found Rorschach's demise interesting, in that he wouldn't compromise yet he knew what was for the best at that point, meaning he couldn't live with himself either way; a cautionary tail of being too wrapped up in your belief's and being unwilling to bend. All very interesting.

Edit:I also feel that Veidt was an evil man, and likely out of his mind by the end. Whereas the bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were overt shows of force and intimidation, Veidt relied on secrecy and trickery to bring about his goals, leading to even more deaths than the psychic blast created. There's a fine difference between tricking people into playing nice and having come to the conclusion with all the cards on the table. Also, poisoning (?) his staff and burying them in the snow, then saying they were the ones who did it to themselves... I'm not sure I understand that, unless it was some weird symbolism.

Wasson_
02-23-2009, 01:21 AM
an awesomely well executed narrative, but the way everything syncs up together it truly remarkable. The movie will be hard pressed to live up to these standards.

Iron Past
02-23-2009, 06:24 AM
an awesomely well executed narrative, but the way everything syncs up together it truly remarkable. The movie will be hard pressed to live up to these standards.

Yeah, this is where I feel weird with the book. Ultimately I was a little disappointed, because I felt that the exceptionally well told and drawn story ended up being tainted by the very obvious and transparent political leanings of the narrative; it was hard for me to fully enjoy it. It wasn't a message, or a commentary on humankind or anything, but a political statement. I really felt the story could have been much better; hell, they could have told this exact same story without taking the route Moore did. Also, I had seen this statement before and didn't really buy it at the time, but now I have to agree that Moore doesn't respect his characters at all. Every single one of them is written with at least a little cynicism. There were also a few things just thrown in for their shock value and had zero bearing on anything else, which weakened parts for me.

But, I can still interpret it as I wish instead of being spoon-fed the ideologies that are apparent and therefore enjoy it. Like I said, exceptionally well told and drawn.

Bone
02-23-2009, 10:04 AM
Actually, reading the accompanying notes in the Absolute edition makes me think that, at least, Moore wanted to respect his characters. His notes refer to his more conservative characters needing to be written from a genuine standpoint, not as a liberal author writing a caricature of a conservative hero. Now, whether he achieved that or not is debatable, but clearly he wanted the differing viewpoints to be presented as if each character earnestly believed their own ideals.

cppcrusader
02-23-2009, 10:21 AM
Well when you put it that way...

Realistically though, a giveaway could work but the shipping would be rather expensive, especially if I had to send it outside the EU. I guess I could limit it to Europe, but that really doesn't seem fair.

That would be better than the way I ended up with my Absolute Edition a couple months ago. My puppy got a hold of my papberback copies of both Watchmen and Kingdom Come.

Froghourt
02-23-2009, 11:25 AM
That would be better than the way I ended up with my Absolute Edition a couple months ago. My puppy got a hold of my papberback copies of both Watchmen and Kingdom Come.

I dread every single day I am not home, because my cat has a tendency to bite on everything with an edge, and I have a lot of books laying around.

muddi900
02-23-2009, 11:28 AM
Yeah, this is where I feel weird with the book. Ultimately I was a little disappointed, because I felt that the exceptionally well told and drawn story ended up being tainted by the very obvious and transparent political leanings of the narrative; it was hard for me to fully enjoy it. It wasn't a message, or a commentary on humankind or anything, but a political statement. I really felt the story could have been much better; hell, they could have told this exact same story without taking the route Moore did. Also, I had seen this statement before and didn't really buy it at the time, but now I have to agree that Moore doesn't respect his characters at all. Every single one of them is written with at least a little cynicism. There were also a few things just thrown in for their shock value and had zero bearing on anything else, which weakened parts for me.

But, I can still interpret it as I wish instead of being spoon-fed the ideologies that are apparent and therefore enjoy it. Like I said, exceptionally well told and drawn.

What political statement? Cold War is nasty? Powerful blue people can be philosophical? Nixon wasn't evil? People tend to sympathize with victims of catastrophe?


As far as the cynicism goes, well Alan Moore was a guy living in 80s Britain. That is what I related to the most. I live in a time of extreme apathy and cynicism.

TheFlyingOrc
02-23-2009, 11:43 AM
Yeah, this is where I feel weird with the book. Ultimately I was a little disappointed, because I felt that the exceptionally well told and drawn story ended up being tainted by the very obvious and transparent political leanings of the narrative; it was hard for me to fully enjoy it. It wasn't a message, or a commentary on humankind or anything, but a political statement. I really felt the story could have been much better; hell, they could have told this exact same story without taking the route Moore did. Also, I had seen this statement before and didn't really buy it at the time, but now I have to agree that Moore doesn't respect his characters at all. Every single one of them is written with at least a little cynicism. There were also a few things just thrown in for their shock value and had zero bearing on anything else, which weakened parts for me.

But, I can still interpret it as I wish instead of being spoon-fed the ideologies that are apparent and therefore enjoy it. Like I said, exceptionally well told and drawn.

As a very strong conservative, I totally disagree. I especially was amazed at Moore, who is CRAZY liberal, was able to write both papers (New Frontiersman and Nova Express) as completely nuts.

Rorschach, Ozymandias, and Dr. Manhattan are all three morally complex characters.

And what shock value things are you talking about?

Iron Past
02-23-2009, 12:17 PM
What political statement? Cold War is nasty? Powerful blue people can be philosophical? Nixon wasn't evil? People tend to sympathize with victims of catastrophe?

Actually, Nixon seemed to be portrayed as a man with a solid head on his shoulders throughout; it was almost easy to miss what he did. Aside from that, the message that all the 'conservatives' in his book were crazy and trusting people in power to do what's best is stupid.

And what shock value things are you talking about?

Really, did all the characters have to be manic depressive/extremist/gay (I swear there were more gay people than strait)? There were a couple other things I don't remember off the top of my head.

Look, I'm not trying to say I didn't enjoy to book or that Moore didn't try to at least balance the politics out a little, I just don't think he succeeded all the time. None of it was really obvious till Ozymandia's spiel in the last couple of chapters, but there are tones all over the place. To be honest, it's nothing new, since any time politics of any kind are written into a story there will be some discomfort if you don't see eye to eye on everything. I'm just giving the opinion of someone who has had no investment in Watchmen up till now and just finished reading it, so you can take it or leave it.

Edit: Upon further musing, I suppose that Moore wasn't trying to relay too much of a message (though it's hard to argue the 'people in power are assholes' point). I suppose I was just attuned to his portrayal of the characters as political figures for the purpose of the story, but that doesn't neccesarily transfer to a view of the world.

There were some great moments, too. Like Ozzy lamenting the nature of humankind to never stop fighting unless they're tricked into it, yet as Joey and whatshername are going at it there are all those people who stop to help. Then having Bernie cover-up and try to save the other Bernie that he barely knew as the psychic shock wave triggered was pretty powerful imagery as well.

Bone
02-23-2009, 12:53 PM
Actually, Nixon seemed to be portrayed as a man with a solid head on his shoulders throughout; it was almost easy to miss what he did. Aside from that, the message that all the 'conservatives' in his book were crazy and trusting people in power to do what's best is stupid.
Huh, I didn't get that message at all. I think you may be projecting your own perspective here. While it's art, and can be viewed subjectively, I don't get this message at all from the text.


Really, did all the characters have to be manic depressive/extremist/gay (I swear there were more gay people than strait)? There were a couple other things I don't remember off the top of my head.There were precisely three characters who were gay, if I remember correctly, and they were all from the Minutemen era. Again I think you're projecting your discomfort a bit.

Personally I find the main thrust of the plot not about politics- the politics exist as necessary symptoms of the state of the world- but about a moral dilemma faced by those who have the ability to help others, when that help may entail "breaking a few eggs to make the omelet". Certainly there are ties to how politicians DO use their given knowledge and power (both of which are not available to the average person) to achieve things that may harm some people to create an effect of greater good.

Overall, I didn't find the Watchmen story as a whole choosing a political side in particular.

Iron Past
02-23-2009, 01:04 PM
Huh, I didn't get that message at all. I think you may be projecting your own perspective here. While it's art, and can be viewed subjectively, I don't get this message at all from the text.

I know this just from the Wikipedia article, but it's based on interviews.

Moore specifically stated in 1986 that he was writing Watchmen to be "not anti-Americanism, [but] anti-Reaganism," specifically believing that "at the moment a certain part of Reagan's America isn't scared. They think they're invulnerable."[3] While Moore wanted to write about "power politics" and the "worrying" times he lived in, he stated the reason that the story was set in an alternate reality was because he was worried that readers would "switch off" if he attacked a leader they admired.[4] Moore stated in 1986 that he "was consciously trying to do something that would make people feel uneasy."[3]

There were precisely three characters who were gay, if I remember correctly, and they were all from the Minutemen era. Again I think you're projecting your discomfort a bit.

There were five, and Rorshach openly mused that Ozzy was gay as well. Then the comment from the first Silk Spectre implying that superheroes tend to be gay, also.

I just edited that post, but I'll say again that it seems it was mostly Moore writing the characters almost as characatures and not realy trying to relay a message. But it is literature, and there's always undercurrent in the writing.

TheFlyingOrc
02-23-2009, 01:15 PM
I know this just from the Wikipedia article, but it's based on interviews.


It's funny to me that the Republican is being blamed for creating a time of not enough fear, given that they're villainized for quite the opposite lately.


There were five, and Rorshach openly mused that Ozzy was gay as well. Then the comment from the first Silk Spectre implying that superheroes tend to be gay, also.

Moore has had a bit of a fixation on homosexuality for most of his career - certainly more characters in his books are gay than in the general population, but fiction is almost always about non-normative characters.

I always thought it was odd that he had his lesbian characters get into a street brawl, given how pro-gay Moore is. I think that's evidence of him separating his personal ideals from the work. I know personally I would avoid displaying any Black people as particularly violent in any work I would create, and its odd that he made the lesbians behave as such. Bravo to him for not patronizing an oppressed people as saints.


I just edited that post, but I'll say again that it seems it was mostly Moore writing the characters almost as characatures and not realy trying to relay a message. But it is literature, and there's always undercurrent in the writing.
He muses on it in Under The Hood - only really, really extreme people become superheroes. I think you kinda need to accept that you're missing something - chances are you have the version of the book where the back cover says "Moore's Characters have staggeringly complex psychological profiles." Silk Spectre 1 & 2, Nite Owl 2, The Comedian, Rorschach, Dr. Manhattan, and Ozymandias are all really, really complex.

Froghourt
02-23-2009, 01:24 PM
I always thought the fact that so many superheroes, in the comic, were gay was connected to the fact that they weren't able to be open about their sexuality in public, which made them seek other places were they wouldn't be judged. Or just that they wanted to represent something they couldn't in their normal life.

Iron Past
02-23-2009, 01:27 PM
He muses on it in Under The Hood - only really, really extreme people become superheroes. I think you kinda need to accept that you're missing something - chances are you have the version of the book where the back cover says "Moore's Characters have staggeringly complex psychological profiles." Silk Spectre 1 & 2, Nite Owl 2, The Comedian, Rorschach, Dr. Manhattan, and Ozymandias are all really, really complex.

How am I missing something when all I'm saying is someone who, by your own admission, is very liberal has some political undercurrents in his work? That's true for everyone.

Edit: You know what, I realize that some of this animosity might be because I didn't just come in here and sing the praises of Watchmen after finishing it. I consider my critique on the actual graphic novel (the first post I made after finishing it) and my critique of Moore's writing two separate things. Just to make myself clear, I thought the book was exceptionaly well told and drawn, and completely messed with your head in the end enough to make you wonder about your stance on some things. I think Moore charged up his characters a little too much with politics, but I say that looking at it from a purely analytical perspective. So take that for what it's worth.

Bone
02-23-2009, 01:36 PM
There were five, and Rorshach openly mused that Ozzy was gay as well. Then the comment from the first Silk Spectre implying that superheroes tend to be gay, also.Can you help me out then? I know Hooded Justice was, and Silhouette (who had an unnamed lover, and both were murdered). So even saying that 3 characters were gay is a bit of a stretch. Where are the other two I missed?

By the way, Rorschach commenting on Ozy's potential homosexuality says more about Rorschach than it does Ozy. Rorschach is constantly projecting his beliefs and his understanding of the world onto the world around him. This actually almost turned me off to the comic in the beginning, as I assumed the "narrator" of this comic was batshit crazy. Once I learned who was narrating and that he didn't speak for everyone, it all made more sense and really worked.

Iron Past
02-23-2009, 01:43 PM
Hooded Justice was gay with Captain Metropolis (refered to as 'Nelly'), Silhouette had her thing going on, and I consider Joey and her girlfriend main characters as they're given plenty of panel-time. Even with Rorschach 'projecting' like that, it still had that reference and in an interview Silk Spectre 1 said "some jobs just attrack a certain kind of people" when referencing the gay people in the Minutemen. It's not a big deal by any means, but there's almost a fixation on homosexuality in places.

Bone
02-23-2009, 01:54 PM
Hooded Justice was gay with Captain Metropolis (refered to as 'Nelly'), Silhouette had her thing going on, and I consider Joey and her girlfriend main characters as they're given plenty of panel-time. Even with Rorschach 'projecting' like that, it still had that reference and in an interview Silk Spectre 1 said "some jobs just attrack a certain kind of people" when referencing the gay people in the Minutemen. It's not a big deal by any means, but there's almost a fixation on homosexuality in places.
I did not initially make the connection with Nelly, but upon further research, I have to admit Cap Metro seems to be the 4th gay character. Still, Rorschach's ideas of Ozy have little bearing. They could be based on jealousy, hatred, or any other manifestation of Rorschach's insane view of the world.

And I wouldn't call it a fixation on homosexuality at all. It's mentioned briefly and each mention appears to strengthen the description of the characters being mentioned. It does have to do with the characters- at least, it explains Hooded Justice's dismissal of Sally as a love interest, and explains Silhouette's murder. It also has ties to who all of the "costumed adventurers" are- people with identities they keep hidden from the world. There is a parallel here, for sure.

Still, now we're at 4 characters, none of whom are even Watchmen, and one "accusation" from a psychopath against one of the Watchmen. I still don't see this as a majority of the characters and they don't spend a lot of time on it. Methinks you protest too much.

Iron Past
02-23-2009, 02:02 PM
Still, now we're at 4 characters,none of whom are even Watchmen, and one "accusation" from a psychopath against one of the Watchmen. I still don't see this as a majority of the characters and they don't spend a lot of time on it. Methinks you protest too much.

It was hyperbole, obviously. I was just observing that there was an unusually heavy percentage of characters that are gay (you're forgetting Joey and her partner) and it didn't make much sense to me. If you want to claim some parallel between masked vigilantes and people being in the closet, I suppose, but now it seems you would be reading further into the story and metaphors than me. ;)

In all likelyhood, it's something that interests Moore and that's why it's in there. I'm not attacking the book, I'm just making some observations form an objective viewpoint.

Bone
02-23-2009, 02:06 PM
It was hyperbole, obviously. I was just observing that there was an unusually heavy percentage of characters that are gay (you're forgetting Joey and her partner) and it didn't make much sense to me. If you want to claim some parallel between masked vigilantes and people being in the closet, I suppose, but now it seems you would be reading further into the story and metaphors than me. ;)

In all likelyhood, it's something that interests Moore and that's why it's in there. I'm not attacking the book, I'm just making some observations form an objective viewpoint.

OK, it sounded like a real complaint and not hyperbole. I thought you were trying to unmask (heh) some bigger aspect of the Watchmen.

I don't think I'm reading too much in to the "closeted" nature of superheroes- this is mentioned a few times, is the core of their struggle in a way once they are outlawed. I think also that Sally's mention of it taking a certain kind of person meant someone who was OK with living a secret life in general, rather than her implying that homosexuals tend to gravitate towards being a superhero as you implied.

Iron Past
02-23-2009, 02:15 PM
I don't think I'm reading too much in to the "closeted" nature of superheroes- this is mentioned a few times, is the core of their struggle in a way once they are outlawed. I think also that Sally's mention of it taking a certain kind of person meant someone who was OK with living a secret life in general, rather than her implying that homosexuals tend to gravitate towards being a superhero as you implied.

Oh, that makes much more sense, actually. :) I could also see it meaning people that go against the grain of society.

Bone
02-23-2009, 02:30 PM
Totally. The superheroes in this world are outsiders, for sure, and maybe that makes it an attractive profession for all types of people who don't fit in to society.

TheFlyingOrc
02-23-2009, 03:24 PM
How am I missing something when all I'm saying is someone who, by your own admission, is very liberal has some political undercurrents in his work? That's true for everyone.

That's not what I'm criticizing. There ARE some Moore liberal undercurrents, but given how crazy liberal he actually is, he does an excellent job of keeping it under the surface (with the possible exception of the New Frontiersman insert, most especially the political cartoon). I disagree with you because there's so little "make everyone who I disagree with be a stupid moron" that I'm amazed he pulled it off. I'm saying Watchmen is one of the only things I've ever read where I was impressed by the author's ability to hold back his personal beliefs to tell a story.

I'm criticizing you saying that the characters are caricatures - they really aren't. They're "staggeringly complex", not simply projections of Moore's opinions.

I'd be much more OK with you claiming not to like the book. You seem to be saying that the most morally complex graphical novel ever isn't morally complex, and I think you missed the point.

TheFlyingOrc
02-23-2009, 03:25 PM
Totally. The superheroes in this world are outsiders, for sure, and maybe that makes it an attractive profession for all types of people who don't fit in to society.

Also, Moore really likes talking about homosexuals, not just in this work.

muddi900
02-23-2009, 03:33 PM
OK, it sounded like a real complaint and not hyperbole. I thought you were trying to unmask (heh) some bigger aspect of the Watchmen.

I don't think I'm reading too much in to the "closeted" nature of superheroes- this is mentioned a few times, is the core of their struggle in a way once they are outlawed. I think also that Sally's mention of it taking a certain kind of person meant someone who was OK with living a secret life in general, rather than her implying that homosexuals tend to gravitate towards being a superhero as you implied.

You're right about this. Almost, all his work have major homosexual characters or major plot points involving. V for Vendetta had that beautiful letter, for example. But it has been surprisingly absent fron his other magnum opus, LXG. Or maybe it isn't. I need to re read that for the preparation of Vol. 3.


But other than that I don't see anything of what you're saying. You americans and your stupid partisan politics.

And, no I wasn't being sarcastic when I said "Nixon wasn't evil".

Iron Past
02-23-2009, 03:43 PM
I'm criticizing you saying that the characters are caricatures - they really aren't. They're "staggeringly complex", not simply projections of Moore's opinions.

I suppose it's more appropriate to say that they have exagerated views on the world, or extreme views on the world. I don't mean them to be reprsentative of others. The book is very moraly complex, I recognize that, but that doesn't mean that both Rorschach and Ozzy aren't out of their damn minds.

Bone
02-23-2009, 03:47 PM
But other than that I don't see anything of what you're saying. You americans and your stupid partisan politics.
You aren't disagreeing with me; I never mentioned that :)

Well actually, I mentioned it only to say Moore himself tried to keep his political leanings out and make each character seem to believe in their own politics completely.

Vermillion
02-23-2009, 03:59 PM
I just got done reading the graphic novel. Honestly, I was a little disappointed in the ending. Everything was so perfectly paced and laid out until the last couple of chapters. It was pretty bloody obvious by the structure of the book who the bad guy was going to be. Then the ending just seemed like it was rammed down our throats. Then everyone just rolled over and easily accepted it even though they fought so hard to find the truth. And then the villian was held completely unculpable for their actions. Just let off the hook with a "I guess they have a point".

The way I read the characters, Ror wouldn't have walked away from that situation, he would have fought it to his last breath, spitting contempt the whole time. He would have tried to punish him until he died. Night Owl would have still demanded justice of some sort. He was the boy scout, wanting to do right, he wouldn't just say "well i don't want the world to go back to the way it was, so I can't hold you personally responsible". That's what aggrevated me the most, there was never any resolution. Oz got off with a smudge on his conscience and that was it. These people are suppossed to be heroes, but in the end, when faced with a morally difficult choice, they all took the easy way out. Evil won because good people did nothing.

Personally, my favorite part of the book was
when Dr. Manhattan told Silk Spectre II that he was standing over all the dead people and then saw himself killing someone in the snow. My mind just spun crazy thoughts about who it would be and why. Then it turned out to be my least favorite part. The fact that it was Ror was a perplexing choice honestly. Yes, maybe he had to die because he would have never relented. But, it didn't make sense that Manhattan had to do it. If anyone, it should have been Oz, to prevent him from undoing his greatest works. Manhattan, while he valued human life in the end, could still care less about it's existance and what would happen next. He just packed up his blue penis and left town without giving it a second thought. So, I just totally disagree with how that played out.

But I'm interested in seeing how it's going to be up to film. I can now see a lot of the liberties that have been taken in the trailer clips... so it's interesting.

zarathstra
02-23-2009, 06:26 PM
Yeah, this is where I feel weird with the book. Ultimately I was a little disappointed, because I felt that the exceptionally well told and drawn story ended up being tainted by the very obvious and transparent political leanings of the narrative; it was hard for me to fully enjoy it. It wasn't a message, or a commentary on humankind or anything, but a political statement. I really felt the story could have been much better; hell, they could have told this exact same story without taking the route Moore did. Also, I had seen this statement before and didn't really buy it at the time, but now I have to agree that Moore doesn't respect his characters at all. Every single one of them is written with at least a little cynicism. There were also a few things just thrown in for their shock value and had zero bearing on anything else, which weakened parts for me.

But, I can still interpret it as I wish instead of being spoon-fed the ideologies that are apparent and therefore enjoy it. Like I said, exceptionally well told and drawn.

What political statement are you referring to? The one where nuclear war is bad?

Also, just about everyone I know is a t least little cynical, it comes from living in the world we do. Wouldn't people in a world EVEN WORSE THAN OURS be a little jaded by it?

TheFlyingOrc
02-23-2009, 07:10 PM
The way I read the characters, Ror wouldn't have walked away from that situation, he would have fought it to his last breath, spitting contempt the whole time. He would have tried to punish him until he died. Night Owl would have still demanded justice of some sort. He was the boy scout, wanting to do right, he wouldn't just say "well i don't want the world to go back to the way it was, so I can't hold you personally responsible". That's what aggrevated me the most, there was never any resolution. Oz got off with a smudge on his conscience and that was it. These people are suppossed to be heroes, but in the end, when faced with a morally difficult choice, they all took the easy way out. Evil won because good people did nothing.

With Dr. Manhattan standing there? Rorshach had already assessed that he couldn't beat Ozymandias, and you think he was going to try to take on both Jon and Adrian?

The big deal is that they HAVE to go along with. If they reveal that it was all Veidt's doing, then the Russians will continue to move forward.

Also, the very end of the book implies that Rorschach's journal is going to go live, and everyone is going to know it was Ozy.

The appeal of the story is that it ISN'T just another story where the heroes show up and fix everything.

Personally, my favorite part of the book was
when Dr. Manhattan told Silk Spectre II that he was standing over all the dead people and then saw himself killing someone in the snow. My mind just spun crazy thoughts about who it would be and why. Then it turned out to be my least favorite part. The fact that it was Ror was a perplexing choice honestly. Yes, maybe he had to die because he would have never relented. But, it didn't make sense that Manhattan had to do it. If anyone, it should have been Oz, to prevent him from undoing his greatest works. Manhattan, while he valued human life in the end, could still care less about it's existance and what would happen next. He just packed up his blue penis and left town without giving it a second thought. So, I just totally disagree with how that played out.

But I'm interested in seeing how it's going to be up to film. I can now see a lot of the liberties that have been taken in the trailer clips... so it's interesting.

You're missing the ending. Manhattan had to kill Rorschach so that thousands of people don't die in the future. It would have been right to stop Ozy before, but now that his plan is finished, revealing won't bring back the dead and might kill BILLIONS.

Iron Past
02-23-2009, 08:21 PM
What political statement are you referring to? The one where nuclear war is bad?

Also, just about everyone I know is a t least little cynical, it comes from living in the world we do. Wouldn't people in a world EVEN WORSE THAN OURS be a little jaded by it?

You skipped, like, a page and a half worth of discussion. ;)

I did amend some of my earlier interpretations by discussing them maturely and not immediately jumping on anyone with a dissenting opinion (that was kind of the point of this thread), but in the end I really don't give a fuck what other people think. IU hardly need anyone's approval to have my own opinion.

And for the record, this:

I'd be much more OK with you claiming not to like the book.

is a very asshole statement to make. Someone as a different view on something so you'd rather they just didn't like the same thing? Yeah, we're all adults here. I'm not trying to jump on Orc, just making a point.

zarathstra
02-23-2009, 08:36 PM
You skipped, like, a page and a half worth of discussion. ;)

I did amend some of my earlier interpretations by discussing them maturely and not immediately jumping on anyone with a dissenting opinion (that was kind of the point of this thread), but in the end I really don't give a fuck what other people think. IU hardly need anyone's approval to have my own opinion.


I wasn't trying to jump on you, I was just pointing out that everyone has an inner cynic, which might be exacerbated by living in a scarier world. You are of course welcome to your opinion.

Sorry about skipping so much discussion, I think I walked away from the comp in the middle of my response and came back later on, after other people had posted.

Iron Past
02-23-2009, 08:43 PM
I wasn't trying to jump on you, I was just pointing out that everyone has an inner cynic, which might be exacerbated by living in a scarier world. You are of course welcome to your opinion.

Sorry about skipping so much discussion, I think I walked away from the comp in the middle of my response and came back later on, after other people had posted.

S'alright. But I was pretty annoyed that at first no one even bothered to try and have an adult conversation, and your post was almost word for word a previous one. What you say makes sense, but everyone having such a shitty attitude wore on me after a while. Maybe it was because I shot through the last few chapters so quickly.

Vermillion
02-23-2009, 09:08 PM
With Dr. Manhattan standing there? Rorshach had already assessed that he couldn't beat Ozymandias, and you think he was going to try to take on both Jon and Adrian?

The big deal is that they HAVE to go along with. If they reveal that it was all Veidt's doing, then the Russians will continue to move forward.

Also, the very end of the book implies that Rorschach's journal is going to go live, and everyone is going to know it was Ozy.

The appeal of the story is that it ISN'T just another story where the heroes show up and fix everything.


You're missing the ending. Manhattan had to kill Rorschach so that thousands of people don't die in the future. It would have been right to stop Ozy before, but now that his plan is finished, revealing won't bring back the dead and might kill BILLIONS.

No, I get why it had to be done. In my OP I said he had to die because he would never compromise. But in the same breath, Ror would NEVER compromise or back down from Oz. Even if he couldn't take him. He would never let him live. Thus I don't buy him slunking off. Maybe he knew the truth would get out and it wasn't worth the fight, but that's all underpinnings with nothing in the book to back it up.

But you didn't address my point. Oz was never held accountable for his actions. They didn't have to out him publicly and possibly kill billions, but he deserved justice for what he did. He could have had an accident, and no one would have ever known the difference. They were focused on this horrible unrelated accident. Hell, they could have made it look like he was one of the people who died in the explosion, no one would have been the wiser. Instead they took the easy way out and nothing happened to him. They let him live, they all went into hiding. They weren't heroes when it came down to it, they were people playing heroes who in the end, only wanted to live a normal life. I think that's an interesting ending, one I'm just a little bit dissatisfied with.

I did catch the ending with the journal. I know the truth is unstopable. But then that begs the question, if the book got out, then Dr. M would know that and he would have stopped it from seeing the light of day because he didn't want billions to die. But he didn't. So the question is: why kill Ror if the truth getting out meant nothing. You can argue that the truth got out, but no one believed the rag so it never mattered. Well, no one would ever believe Ror either, so it's a moot point. So I still disagree that Dr. M had to kill Ror.

It's just my opinion. I thought it was extremely well told story that tripped in the ending when it didn't follow through on the character it had developed. Nothing in the book, that I can see, contridicts that.

crazyD
02-23-2009, 09:12 PM
But you didn't address my point. Oz was never held accountable for his actions. They didn't have to out him publicly and possibly kill billions, but he deserved justice for what he did. He could have had an accident, and no one would have ever known the difference. They were focused on this horrible unrelated accident. Hell, they could have made it look like he was one of the people who died in the explosion, no one would have been the wiser. Instead they took the easy way out and nothing happened to him. They let him live, they all went into hiding. They weren't heroes when it came down to it, they were people playing heroes who in the end, only wanted to live a normal life. I think that's an interesting ending, one I'm just a little bit dissatisfied with.

I don't really take Nite-Owl as the murdering-then-hiding-the-body type. And even if he was, how could they have stopped Adrian and Manhattan?

I did catch the ending with the journal. I know the truth is unstopable. But then that begs the question, if the book got out, then Dr. M would know that and he would have stopped it from seeing the light of day because he didn't want billions to die. But he didn't. So the question is: why kill Ror if the truth getting out meant nothing. You can argue that the truth got out, but no one believed the rag so it never mattered. Well, no one would ever believe Ror either, so it's a moot point. So I still disagree that Dr. M had to kill Ror.

Manhattan has shown that he is unable / unwilling to change the future, despite his knowledge of it.

Vermillion
02-23-2009, 09:43 PM
I don't forsake night owl for what he did. I think he would want justice, but he also wanted to live with the woman he loved. I would have hoped he might have boy scouted up, but he ran and decided to live instead.

Silk Spectre did EXACTLY what her character would have done. So did Oz. I thought they stayed in character till the end.

I just don't buy Dr. H murdering someone for the sake of humanity. That didn't fit his character the entire story. In fact, he put himself in isolation for thinking he even harmed someone by being near them. Hell, he didn't even kill Oz when he had the chance.

And I'm not sure why everyone is saying that they had to fight Oz AND M. M didn't want him die (even if it was completely illogical), but he never said he would forcably stop them.

And Ror knew all along that he and Owl couldn't take Oz. They talked about it on the ride there. Saying that Ror back down because he couldn't take Oz doesn't make sense. He knew it all along, but that didn't stop him from trying. That was Ror's character, it was righteousness in the face of sin. He would die punishing those who did evil. His character deserved a better end then being systematically butchered in the snow by someone who could really care less about what he was about to do.

crazyD
02-23-2009, 09:53 PM
Manhattan is a big picture kind of guy. He sees a few deaths to stop many more as a good move overall.

I think Rorschach left because he is a black and white kind of guy, and Adrian made him see grey. That, and the knowledge that nothing he could do could fix the situation, and that he felt powerless.

Vermillion
02-23-2009, 09:59 PM
And don't get me wrong, just because I disagreed with the ending, doesn't mean I didn't really like it. I liked it so much that I'm a little torqued that it didn't go off the way I thought it should.

I'm actually more excited about the movie now. I thoroughly enjoyed the new content they showed during house. A seemingly angry Dr. H was interesting to see.

Iron Past
02-24-2009, 06:20 AM
There should, at this point, just be a gigantic spoiler warning in the title. :)

I feel the end tripped a little, too. Maybe a little rushed or something. For Rorschach, I think he was at the point the point where he felt he needed to let everyone know what had happened, but also knew what was for the best by that point. He almost begged Dr. M to kill him. I just felt he couldn't live with himself either way. Then again, by one of the first lines in his journal, I doubt he would care if the world burned. I could see the ending happening, but it probably could have been done better.

Anyway, I, too, am excited for the movie, since from the clips I've seen it looks like they actually 'fixed' some of the things I found a little annoying in the book. I know that will drive some people here nuts, however. ;)

Primus
02-24-2009, 06:41 AM
Can you help me out then? I know Hooded Justice was, and Silhouette (who had an unnamed lover, and both were murdered). So even saying that 3 characters were gay is a bit of a stretch. Where are the other two I missed?

By the way, Rorschach commenting on Ozy's potential homosexuality says more about Rorschach than it does Ozy. Rorschach is constantly projecting his beliefs and his understanding of the world onto the world around him. This actually almost turned me off to the comic in the beginning, as I assumed the "narrator" of this comic was batshit crazy. Once I learned who was narrating and that he didn't speak for everyone, it all made more sense and really worked.

I big part of the book links perversion and being unaccepted with donning a mask and cape.

One part has Nite Owl and Silk Spectre recalling a villian that specifically dressed up to get beat down by super heroes because it got him off.

I don't think it is entirely wrong to specualte that Ozymanduius is gay.

TheFlyingOrc
02-24-2009, 08:54 AM
is a very asshole statement to make. Someone as a different view on something so you'd rather they just didn't like the same thing? Yeah, we're all adults here. I'm not trying to jump on Orc, just making a point.

I'm saying that I have no problem with someone not enjoying the things I like - none. I can very easily see someone saying they did not enjoy Watchmen. However, your assessment of Moore's politics in the book is just incorrect.

TheFlyingOrc
02-24-2009, 08:59 AM
And Ror knew all along that he and Owl couldn't take Oz. They talked about it on the ride there. Saying that Ror back down because he couldn't take Oz doesn't make sense. He knew it all along, but that didn't stop him from trying. That was Ror's character, it was righteousness in the face of sin. He would die punishing those who did evil. His character deserved a better end then being systematically butchered in the snow by someone who could really care less about what he was about to do.

He talked about how he wasn't SURE he could take Ozy, not that it was inevitable - and its clear that Adrian outclassed him way more than Rorschach expected. Also, Rorshach might be hardheaded, but he would never try to fight Doctor Manhattan. He's going back because he knows that exposing Veidt will force him accountable for his crimes.

Actually, there's precedent in the book for Rorshach accepting the inevitable - when Doctor Manhattan teleports him out of the room in issue 1 - Ror just walks off, despite not having finished his mission.

And I think Rorschach's end was awesome, so "better end" is subjective. Don't think you're WRONG on this point, just disagree.

Iron Past
02-24-2009, 10:56 AM
However, your assessment of Moore's politics in the book is just incorrect.

In your opinion. Unless you yourself are Alan Moore, you can't possibly tell me I'm wrong and have me believe you. Just because he wrote in less politics compaired to his other works doesn't remove the fact that they're there, especially since I have no familiarity with his other works. I'm moving on from this argument, anyway.

Edit: Before I completely walk away from this argument, I'd also like to say that if you feel so inclined, look up some reviews/annalysis of the comic (or even the film at this point), and you'll see many comments on "political subtext" and " branching cynicism." Maybe we all misinterpreted it?

Rejuvenile
02-25-2009, 11:07 AM
Has anyone watched the animated version of the graphic novel that is on Xbox Live? I've only seen the previews. The animations are simple, but cool. I'm curious how comprehensive the series is. I'm trying to get my girlfriend to finish the book before the film comes out, but she's a slow reader. I'm wondering if the animated series would be a better route.

Telefrog
02-25-2009, 12:36 PM
Has anyone watched the animated version of the graphic novel that is on Xbox Live? I've only seen the previews. The animations are simple, but cool. I'm curious how comprehensive the series is. I'm trying to get my girlfriend to finish the book before the film comes out, but she's a slow reader. I'm wondering if the animated series would be a better route.

The animated flick is the same one that's been on iTunes and Amazon for a few months. It's not bad, (at least the first free chapter) but since it's just flash animated stills from the comic, why not just read it anyway?

muddi900
03-01-2009, 10:43 AM
"Motion Comics" is one of the biggest scams ever. It's just panels form a comic, animated by flash. And they charge you for it!

Lint of Death
03-01-2009, 01:35 PM
I just read the book this past week, and it was fantastic! Today I've been reading that Philosophy of Watchmen book that just came out, and it's pretty interesting.

I couldn't tell if it was resolved earlier, but there were five clearly (or at least clearly alluded) homosexual major/minor characters in the book, as Iron Past said:
1. Silhouette
2 & 3. Hooded Justice and Captain Metropolis
4 & 5. Joey (the cab driver putting up a poster) and her girlfriend from the gang
Dr. Manhattan is said to be so by other characters in the book, but it's just a baseless statement by a minor charactor. If Ozymandius really is so ambiguous, I guess that's fitting of his emulation of Alexander the Great :p

I thought the ending was great, and that everyone obeyed their characters quite well. The nervous, nuclear bomb shadow embrace being reflected in Nite-Owl and Silk Spectre, and then in the mask of Rorschach, was just beautiful.

Chill
03-08-2009, 01:07 PM
On the recommendation of many people in the thread, I just came home from Borders with their last copy of Absolute Watchmen. Used the 30% off coupon so its the price equivalent to a PC game. Not too shabby.

Now I just have to decide if I want to watch the movie first, or read the book first. Just kidding. Of course I'll watch the movie first.

muddi900
03-08-2009, 01:17 PM
Never ever buy deluxe edition if you're unfamiliar with the work. You should read the book first, now that you've bought it. The movie is great, still not as good.

I am still so gay for the Absolute edition.

Chill
03-08-2009, 04:54 PM
I fell in love with the book the second I took off the wrapping. I wanted to really get the full experience with my first reading, and this was a pretty good deal, imo.

And, I was joking about watching the movie first. Something tells me that would ruin the story (on some level).

muddi900
03-10-2009, 01:27 PM
Since there is much talk about and a lot of you are older, were any of you around back when it was coming out? I mean, did anybody here read it in issues?

TheFlyingOrc
03-10-2009, 02:11 PM
Since there is much talk about and a lot of you are older, were any of you around back when it was coming out? I mean, did anybody here read it in issues?

I cannot imagine how awesome Watchmen had to be to read in issues. Do you know how much fun it would be waiting a month to see Nite Owl and Silk Spectre bust out Rorshach? Finding out that the comedian was Silk Spectre 2's dad after 9 months of reading? A whole month after finding out that Adrian was behind the whole thing?

I'm sad I missed it.

civil
03-10-2009, 02:27 PM
Since there is much talk about and a lot of you are older, were any of you around back when it was coming out? I mean, did anybody here read it in issues?
I remember it coming out, but only because a friend was really into comics. At the time I was too cool for school so I never bothered though I do remember leafing through a few of them.

I'd like to get in touch with him again just to see what he thought of the movie. Last I saw him was in 91 and he was as crazy about comics as ever and still talked about Watchmen as if it was the Bible.

darkbase
03-10-2009, 02:38 PM
I found the first three issues at a train station museum run by a family of Native Americans in Alaska (near Anchorage) and felt a little guilty buying them for their posted price of $1 each. Wish I bought the rest of their stash, lots of Marvel like Hulk and F4 which I don't care for but it would be worth owning anyway.

Telefrog
03-10-2009, 02:52 PM
I still have my full set of the original 12 issues! I followed Moore from back when he revitalized Swamp Thing (killing the lame mud-monster self-pitying Thing ripoff and turning him into a badass Earth elemental) and invented John Constantine. When I heard that he was doing a limited run series based on the Charlton Comics characters that DC had (at that time) recently acquired, I knew I had to read it.

TheFlyingOrc
03-10-2009, 03:23 PM
I still have my full set of the original 12 issues! I followed Moore from back when he revitalized Swamp Thing (killing the lame mud-monster self-pitying Thing ripoff and turning him into a badass Earth elemental) and invented John Constantine. When I heard that he was doing a limited run series based on the Charlton Comics characters that DC had (at that time) recently acquired, I knew I had to read it.

I am jealous of you.

Telefrog
03-10-2009, 03:52 PM
I am jealous of you.

What's interesting is that even though it was a "limited run" the first time, DC printed a zillion copies so for the last 20 years, it never really appreciated much. I think you could buy a full set in decent condition for about $3-$5 an issue.

In the last couple of years, the value of a full set has gone up to about $200-$250! I'd never sell them, but it tickles me to see what movie speculation can do to comic prices.

mister slim
03-10-2009, 09:06 PM
Yeah, by 'limited run' they meant 'we'll only print a quarter of a million copies or so'. Which is a scarily high number when you think about it.

Oh, Neil Gaiman dug out a couple of old interviews he did with Alan Moore back when Watchmen was running. Really (http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2009/02/from-before-he-was-wizard.html) cool (http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2009/02/dragged-screaming-from-vaults.html).

Rorschach
03-10-2009, 11:05 PM
Get the Absolute Edition... or bust. It stands on one of my shelves, next to my 28" monitor. It is glorious.

as does mine, seperately my two volumes of the sandman stand.

Lint of Death
03-10-2009, 11:16 PM
Can someone tell me where in the novel it was implied that the Comedian assassinated JFK? I'm sure it's in there and the movie made it a definite thing, but where was it?

muddi900
03-11-2009, 03:19 AM
I was during that party flash-back of Laurie. "Just don't ask me where I was that day". And it was shown in the publicity material.

this is from the gaiman scan:
http://i385.photobucket.com/albums/oo299/muddi900/Scan30069.jpg


this is the original poster:
http://i385.photobucket.com/albums/oo299/muddi900/comedian-comic-poster-big1.jpg
These were posted on EvAv around the time of the first trailer.

muddi900
03-11-2009, 05:14 AM
I cannot imagine how awesome Watchmen had to be to read in issues. Do you know how much fun it would be waiting a month to see Nite Owl and Silk Spectre bust out Rorshach? Finding out that the comedian was Silk Spectre 2's dad after 9 months of reading? A whole month after finding out that Adrian was behind the whole thing?

I'm sad I missed it.

You would be right, but Watchmen is always given the example as how "great work takes time". The issues were late on schedule. Of course, translating 120 page:eek: script for a 22 page comic must take time. I just found out about the Moore's scripts the other day, and I almost smacked myself for thinking the art is "meh", when I first read it. Of course, It was one of my first comics.

Iron Past
03-11-2009, 07:03 AM
Can someone tell me where in the novel it was implied that the Comedian assassinated JFK? I'm sure it's in there and the movie made it a definite thing, but where was it?

In addition to muddi's stuff, I think it was sometime during Ozzy's spiel that he said he was investigating the Comedian for HJ's death and he makes mention that he just happened to be in Dallas that day. The way it's worded all but says it outright.

roboninja
03-11-2009, 07:17 AM
"Motion Comics" is one of the biggest scams ever. It's just panels form a comic, animated by flash. And they charge you for it!

I don't get the big "scam". It is basically an audiobook of a graphic novel.

Squidbot
03-11-2009, 07:26 AM
I cannot imagine how awesome Watchmen had to be to read in issues. Do you know how much fun it would be waiting a month to see Nite Owl and Silk Spectre bust out Rorshach? Finding out that the comedian was Silk Spectre 2's dad after 9 months of reading? A whole month after finding out that Adrian was behind the whole thing?

I'm sad I missed it.

I was lucky enough to read Watchmen first time around. It was a fantastic, but painful, experience. The wait bewteen issues was a killer, and I believe it really had a bigger impact as a result.
My brother still has all his originals safely bagged and boarded. We don't open them any more.

Lint of Death
03-11-2009, 08:31 AM
I was during that party flash-back of Laurie. "Just don't ask me where I was that day". And it was shown in the publicity material.

!!!!
I remember that line now! I just couldn't tell whether or not the Comedian was ... joking. :p

muddi900
03-11-2009, 09:18 AM
I don't get the big "scam". It is basically an audiobook of a graphic novel.

Comics aren't the same beast as books. Audiobooks serve a purpose, they are great for visually impaired people. Motion comics serve no purpose. They are cheaply made and only subtract from the experience.

TheFlyingOrc
03-11-2009, 09:22 AM
Comics aren't the same beast as books. Audiobooks serve a purpose, they are great for visually impaired people. Motion comics serve no purpose. They are cheaply made and only subtract from the experience.

...you can read them lazier? I wouldn't MIND the motion comic, and your vendetta against seems a bit crazy.

Superman's Dead
03-11-2009, 09:22 AM
Comics aren't the same beast as books. Audiobooks serve a purpose, they are great for visually impaired people. Motion comics serve no purpose. They are cheaply made and only subtract from the experience.

It allowed my best friend to read the Watchmen on his iPhone at work and show his boss how cool Rorschach is. Advantage: Rorschach.

roboninja
03-11-2009, 09:59 AM
Comics aren't the same beast as books. Audiobooks serve a purpose, they are great for visually impaired people. Motion comics serve no purpose. They are cheaply made and only subtract from the experience.

Audiobooks are not just for the blind.

I thought the motion comic of Watchemn was decently done. They used all orginal art (from what I can tell). If that makes it look cheap, so be it.

muddi900
03-11-2009, 03:14 PM
Audiobooks are not just for the blind.

I thought the motion comic of Watchemn was decently done. They used all orginal art (from what I can tell). If that makes it look cheap, so be it.

Watchmen is exactly the kind of book that is wrong for this kind of treatment. The whole pacing of the book is defined by the 9 panel grid. It's not the images and the words but the exact juxtaposition* position. It might work with something like Spawn or Witchblade or some other 90's flashy crap(though I doubt it).

And it's cheap because it is low-res scans cut pasted from paint to flash, narrated by a dude who couldn't get a job narrating audiobooks. Of course, it robs you of the best thing about the medium, the stuff that happens in the gutters, the blanks that your mind fills.

I have similar complaints about audiobooks, but they only rob you of half your imagination. And they are a wonder while on the road.

*God bless Scott McCloud.


EDIT: If one were to compose a whole work in the format, then I see how it might work. But then, why can't they just make an animated movie. :confused:

darkbase
03-11-2009, 03:26 PM
I was during that party flash-back of Laurie. "Just don't ask me where I was that day". And it was shown in the publicity material.

this is the original poster:
http://i385.photobucket.com/albums/oo299/muddi900/comedian-comic-poster-big1.jpg
These were posted on EvAv around the time of the first trailer.

It looks like he's in Mexico (look in the background, and the banner of a mustached man that begins "Viv-"). Sorry but I have a hard time going along with the "Blake shot JFK" thing, but I just read that Nixon was JFK's VP at the time (in the book, at least XD) so I can see how it makes sense now, Nixon would've hired him to do it so he could take over.

Telefrog
03-11-2009, 03:35 PM
And it's cheap because it is low-res scans cut pasted from paint to flash, narrated by a dude who couldn't get a job narrating audiobooks. Of course, it robs you of the best thing about the medium, the stuff that happens in the gutters, the blanks that your mind fills.

Not to completely poop on your rage, but Tom Stechschulte (http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Tom%20Stechschulte&page=1) is a character actor and has narrated quite a few audiobooks. Like, over 129 titles on Amazon!