Y'know, and I hate to bring this up, Denial, but have you actually read Watchmen? It's understandable if you haven't - it's long, and dense, and requires at least three readings to get the most out of. From what you're arguing, it seems very likely that your reading of the work has been at least superficial - I suggest another reading, if you want your questions answered and fears allayed. Really, what you're arguing against doesn't apply to the work in questions, and if you took the time to read it, you'd probably very soon see and understand exactly why.
Watchmen
- Thread starter NightCrawler
- Start date
- Status
nomad
"Bring the light of day"
You know... on a light side (just to express that this argument hasn't had anything productive sooo no I'm not joking), I only saw the movie, but after this chain of "clarifications" I have to say that this story sounds better and better. I think I'm off to buy the Novel! Soooo in my own Nomadic way I say, thank you! 
Denial said:
You're confusing the order of things here. I've argumented on the quality of the original ending early in this thread as well as in the other more general movie ones. Back when it was a "hot issue", you know. If you took the time to actually read threads before posting in them you would know that. Then I said the movie ending was for those who couldn't understand the story. And only after that did you post your little nugget of crude, unargumented ignorance.
But that is not the real issue here. You see, I have plenty of arguments for why the squid ending is better than an alternative you haven't seen (and that you supposedly don't care about, despite your insistence in this thread). But we're not having a discussion about the merits of the squid right now. From your second post it has been clear you either didn't read the story or didn't understand it. Everything you posted since then has only been poor attempts at damage control, trying to pretend you knew it all along but still have issues with the story. It's not fooling anyone.
Denial said:
Yeah man, just like Zeus coming down from "Olympos".
Denial said:
No, actually it's pretty clear you aren't willing to revise your opinion. Or should I say "admit you posted without knowing what the hell you were talking about." I've got no reason to engage you in a "straightforward way" when it's clear your position in this thread is a pretense to hide the fact you messed up at the start. I'd rather point and laugh like everyone else. Like you said yourself, you don't care. You're only trying not to lose face, oblivious to the fact that it's too late for that.
Denial said:
Hahaha, I have the feeling there are a lot of scenes you have forgotten.
Denial said:
I'm sorry, but you don't get to elect what is realistic or not in the story. The fake science involved with Dr. Manhattan is about as realistic as the mechanism behind Spiderman's or Captain Atom's (the character he's inspired from) powers. He's a comic book superhero. Same goes for Nite Owl's vessel or even the concept of costumed heroes fighting real criminals (looks to me like the strong satire in the story went over your head). Just like you don't get to discard the plot of disappearing artists/scientists/psychics that is recurring throughout the story because it doesn't fit your contrived point.
In the end, your argumentation is completely empty (this is not a surprise). This post of yours can be summarized with "Bad Alan Moore" and your attempts to be an authority on what is acceptable or not in a story. Which you aren't. So you think Moore is a poor writer? Alright, it's your opinion. Goes along with the rest. Don't wonder why we all find it amusing though.
Denial said:
Man, you're misconstruing the story so much that this is like a collection of evidence showing that you aren't familiar with it. That's why reading plot summaries on Wikipedia cannot replace reading the actual work. You don't even understand the context between the Russians and the USA it seems (it's not like the real cold war). But the best part is: "the theory of a bunch of crackpots come up with about aliens." You obviously don't know it, but the reason they made the squid into a psychic beast in the first place wasn't so it'd kill people. The kidnapped artists created otherworldly landscapes and stories that were implanted in the squid's brain. When it died, the psychic wave imprinted these into people's minds.
Ah and regarding Ozymandias' plot, you're wrong again. We only see its immediate result in the wake of the panic the squid causes, but Jon completely undermines it when Ozymandias goes to him for validation. It's definitely not a complete success (not one guaranteed to last very long either), and the story ends while specifically stressing that point. But whatever, it's great to see you arbitrarily decide what is believable or not and how people should and shouldn't react in a comic book. Please go on, as you are clearly an expert in the field of fictional reactions to fictional catastrophes in fictional worlds.
Denial said:
Hahaha, oh my, please, please do bring this thread up again in 5 years, by all means. Do it so we can all laugh at you again, and maybe we'll go through your posting history for additional laughs as well. We could call it "Denial Day" or something like that.
Johnstantine
Skibbidy Boo Bop
Denial, are you sure you didn't read some fanfiction or something?
Because, like Aaz said, you REALLY missed the mark on this one.
Because, like Aaz said, you REALLY missed the mark on this one.
Lithrael
Remember, always hold your apple tight
宮本 グリフィス said:
It's not uncommon to feel butthurt when you even only kind of enjoy something and someone else comes along and says it's crap. It's not unreasonable to respond to this by critting the other person's sacred cow and pointing out how it's not impossible to consider that crap as well. These are only opinions and the facts can support any side only so far. And even if both the squid ending and the Manhattan ending were totally flawless and internally consistent people on the internet would slag each other off for liking one or the other better.
To clarify the position I was arguing from earlier, I DON'T think it's tenable for those who do enjoy the movie to tell people who don't like the idea of the movie to 'give it a shot.' There's no reason why a squid ending fan should have to try to accept or enjoy anything else, and in my experience it's only going to piss them off anyway.
handsome rakshas
Thanks Grail!
I have read this whole damn thread and rather than make a quality post I choose to be a parody of it. I'm like the guy from this movie, the COMEDY MAN. 
Vampire_Hunter_Bob
Cats are great
handsome rakshas said:I'm like the guy from this movie, the COMEDY MAN.
I bet the grey haired guy from the Dark Knight, the Jokster, could kick his ass.
I'm beating a dead horse by this point, but I for one am grateful for the movie's existence. As stated prior, much like the Berserk anime, this actually works as a pretty good catching point in realizing that the graphic novel even exists. In fact, since the movie came out, the sales of the graphic novel have been pretty crazy, so in a way you'd think Alan Moore and other fans would be happy that the movie pushed so many people into reading the original vision. I for one probably never would have even heard of Watchmen if it wasn't for the movie. I purchased the graphic novel before the theatrical release so I'd know what I was getting in to, but the movie itself worked well enough to get people interested in the overall mythos. Elitists might argue that it would have been better buried, but that comes across as unfair to me. If the movie had truly been embarrassingly butchered and completely unwatchable as so many IPs are ruined these days, I might have understood the position better. The movie doesn't take away the existence of the graphic novel.
As for the ending, I agree that they probably should have left the squid, but I think both endings worked with a few annoyances on both sides. For the movie, I hated how the ending glorified Dr. Manhattan and made it look like he was making some sort of grand sacrifice leaving Earth whereas in the book he's basically decided things are too complicated for him to stick around. Dr. Manhattan was no hero, yet the movie tried so hard to make us feel sympathetic towards him, someone who barely had any human emotion or empathy remaining.
When looking at the new ending, I don't find it as implausible as some have stated. Dr. Manhattan had basically reached a god-like state in the eyes of the world. Before he was just a weapon the United States held over their shoulder. It's sort of like the Catholic church claiming God will rain down destruction on you if you're bad, but then it never happens. From the way I took things in the graphic novel, Russia was basically about to try to call the US' bluff and attack; a move that would have proved successful so far in severely harming the US. Mutually assured destruction doesn't usually come about because both sides are suicidal, but more that one side is hoping that they might in the end come out on top. However, the idea that Dr. Manhattan would throw off the reigns and take things into his own hands and blow up half of the major cities in the world... That's probably enough to make most people stop and think. Just as Dr. Manhattan has taken on a Godly image in the minds of the people, he's now fully demonstrated what he's capable of doing. On top of that, he's basically made the statement that no one is safe by randomly causing destruction in places other than just Russia. If God descended from the heavens and plainly said, "All right guys, I've had enough." and promptly made it known worldwide, I think things would be a lot different than they are now. On top of that, I'd argue that building a bomb that could easily be reproduced whenever people doubted the ever watchful eye of Dr. Manhattan would be a LOT easier than everything they had to go through to create the squid.
Adrian risked a lot creating and implementing his squid monster and I have a hard time believing it'd be easy to reproduce something like that regularly without it eventually getting out, not to mention that it would always show up dead. That in the end was my problem with the squid. The lasting effects just seemed too narrow and the assumption that the whole world is going to jump and forget about everything else on their plates at something like this happening seems weak to me. Maybe you'd wait a day or two or a week to make sure nothing else is coming, but why the heck wouldn't Russia just see the Squid as a good opportunity to attack? The US was obviously in a weakened state by Dr. Manhattan's disappearance, and now one of their most major cities has been demolished? Why not take care of business and then worry about the squid problem after? Russia was about to nuke the US into smithereens, why should they give a crap that a city got flattened? I have a hard time believing the world would come together over a fear like this unless Adrian had found a way to put images of the squid monsters into everyone's heads rather than just the survivors. It's not the same as something like... say... Independence day when the threat was very real and universal. No one else had a squid monster show up in their back yard.
Yeah. That was way too long.
As for the ending, I agree that they probably should have left the squid, but I think both endings worked with a few annoyances on both sides. For the movie, I hated how the ending glorified Dr. Manhattan and made it look like he was making some sort of grand sacrifice leaving Earth whereas in the book he's basically decided things are too complicated for him to stick around. Dr. Manhattan was no hero, yet the movie tried so hard to make us feel sympathetic towards him, someone who barely had any human emotion or empathy remaining.
When looking at the new ending, I don't find it as implausible as some have stated. Dr. Manhattan had basically reached a god-like state in the eyes of the world. Before he was just a weapon the United States held over their shoulder. It's sort of like the Catholic church claiming God will rain down destruction on you if you're bad, but then it never happens. From the way I took things in the graphic novel, Russia was basically about to try to call the US' bluff and attack; a move that would have proved successful so far in severely harming the US. Mutually assured destruction doesn't usually come about because both sides are suicidal, but more that one side is hoping that they might in the end come out on top. However, the idea that Dr. Manhattan would throw off the reigns and take things into his own hands and blow up half of the major cities in the world... That's probably enough to make most people stop and think. Just as Dr. Manhattan has taken on a Godly image in the minds of the people, he's now fully demonstrated what he's capable of doing. On top of that, he's basically made the statement that no one is safe by randomly causing destruction in places other than just Russia. If God descended from the heavens and plainly said, "All right guys, I've had enough." and promptly made it known worldwide, I think things would be a lot different than they are now. On top of that, I'd argue that building a bomb that could easily be reproduced whenever people doubted the ever watchful eye of Dr. Manhattan would be a LOT easier than everything they had to go through to create the squid.
Adrian risked a lot creating and implementing his squid monster and I have a hard time believing it'd be easy to reproduce something like that regularly without it eventually getting out, not to mention that it would always show up dead. That in the end was my problem with the squid. The lasting effects just seemed too narrow and the assumption that the whole world is going to jump and forget about everything else on their plates at something like this happening seems weak to me. Maybe you'd wait a day or two or a week to make sure nothing else is coming, but why the heck wouldn't Russia just see the Squid as a good opportunity to attack? The US was obviously in a weakened state by Dr. Manhattan's disappearance, and now one of their most major cities has been demolished? Why not take care of business and then worry about the squid problem after? Russia was about to nuke the US into smithereens, why should they give a crap that a city got flattened? I have a hard time believing the world would come together over a fear like this unless Adrian had found a way to put images of the squid monsters into everyone's heads rather than just the survivors. It's not the same as something like... say... Independence day when the threat was very real and universal. No one else had a squid monster show up in their back yard.
Yeah. That was way too long.
Vampire_Hunter_Bob
Cats are great
I think your problem is that you think it was suppose to work in the first place. The reader was left with the feeling that eventually the big secret will come out and be exposed. Nothing, not even blue naked man or squid, can prevent that from happening.CowTip said:
Yeah I ignored all the fluff.
CowTip said:
Russia was both pushed to the edge and held off of attacking because of Dr. Manhattan. I don't think it's a matter of calling a bluff, because they already knew what he could do (remember that he singlehandedly won the Vietnam war). It was fully part of Ozymandias' plan to remove him from the picture, leaving the USA in a vulnerable position (since he was the reason they ruled everything till then). Then, as the Soviets felt confident they had the advantage, BAM here comes a much bigger threat. A threat even the USA's superman couldn't prevent.
On the other hand, what would happen if a country prepared for a nuclear war was nuked overnight, without warning? They'd launch their own missiles. That's what mutual destruction is. Missiles would be launched before they'd check to see if their anticipated enemy had been nuked as well.
CowTip said:
The flaws in Adrian's plan are an integral part of the story. As for repeating the bluff, nuking the capitals of the world doesn't seem like a very desirable alternative to world war in the first place to me... Much less repeating it regularly.
There's many other arguments in favor of the squid in the context of the story. The fact it did a lot less damage, represented a more self-contained conspiracy (something US-centric instead of a worldwide mastermind thing), and also its inherent weirdness. Remember the man behind it is an ex-costumed crime fighter than named himself after a pharaoh. Besides, being something extremely unexpected can arguably work better. Like you said, Dr. Manhattan was the USA's ultimate weapon. Who would be blamed for that weapon turning wrong and blowing up half the world?
CowTip said:
Because it's something that threatens the whole world, even though it happened in the USA (formerly the top dog thanks to Dr. Manhattan)? As for the world coming together over such a threat, look at what history's shown us: after 9/11, the whole world was behind the USA. Pretty much everyone pledged to help. And it wasn't nearly as radical as the squid. Nothing brings people together like the fear of the unknown.
Aazealh said:
My only problem with this idea is that the graphic novel makes a point about the idea that the world is heading towards a nuclear war with or without Dr. Manhattan around. The conversation with Nixon in the war room where they ask if Dr. Manhattan would be able to stave off a full barrage of nuclear warheads with the resulting answer being negative shows that there was indeed a large threat to the US even with 'God' on their side. It seemed that with or without John the world was heading to an eventual future which is why Ozymandias put all of this into motion in the first place.
I agree with this, just it's annoying to have someone who's claimed to be the smartest man on the planet be one of the most shortsighted. Yes, I know that's also an important part to the story, but just because he's like a cockroach to Dr. Manhattan, you'd think he would have thought out the whole 'hey this peace won't last' part a little more unless this was just phase one to a larger plan, but the book doesn't show us that Ozymandias has anything else planned after this point.
This is probably the best argument against the Dr. Manhattan bomb idea I've seen, though I wonder how far they could get away with saying, "Hey look dudes, he blew up our cities too."
I don't think the entire world really banded together on 9/11. There were plenty of people who thought the US got what was coming to them and rejoiced over a great blow to the American devils and even then how many people just helped to save face or gain position only. I think it might be better to look at how Russia reacted to something like Kennedy's assassination. I honestly have no idea what their reaction was to that, probably one of the largest tragedies to befall America during the cold war. It might be worth looking into though.
This is all just further discourse though. I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion on Watchmen or claim my views are superior in any way. I think a real credit to Watchmen in general is that it's given the opportunity to even have discussions like these due to the fact that there's so many different layers that need to be peeled back to get an idea of what was really going on. Whether it 'worked' or not, the real problem with the movie ending is that, as was stated earlier, the writers of the movie felt their end product superior to the original source and that's why they went with it. Obviously, that's a poor reflection of the people who made this movie considering the fan base and the man who wrote the story to begin with.
Lithrael said:
True, but a USA/Soviet Union war wouldn't necessarily mean complete global annihilation either. It's hard to weigh how much destruction would ensue. In any case, I don't find it a very good alternative all things considered.
CowTip said:
Exactly. They were gathering up the nerve to take action despite the threat he posed. Willing to take the risk and to suffer the accompanying losses. Which is not something that works in favor of the movie's ending. Dr. Manhattan's not actually "God". The main idea behind Veidt's plan is to introduce a fake "new player" that was never accounted for. Something that would force all parties involved to completely reconsider their position (I refer you to the Pontiff's speech at the end of Episode 301 for a similar opinion on the matter
). Having Dr. Manhattan attack them isn't something unexpected for the Russians, on the contrary.CowTip said:
But then again, he's a comic book villain.
His plan is very "comicbookish", and intentionally so. It's in line with traditional "super intelligent" comic book characters like Lex Luthor or Mister Fantastic, who never actually exhibit any close to superior intelligence. I will say though that all things considered and within the context of the story, I don't find his plan all that bad. I think it's got merits.CowTip said:
I disagree. All the big players were behind you guys. We had a national 3 minutes of silence a few days after it happened here. I'm pretty sure they lowered the flags and all that.
CowTip said:
Like the rest of the world: shock. Then worry that they would be blamed for it (they repeatedly and vehemently denied any involvement).
CowTip said:
Yeah, my personal grief with the whole thing has always been the gall of the filmmakers to pretend to ameliorate the work while adapting it. And it's what it is, let's be honest. It's not a question of it not working on the big screen or something like that. It's about someone professing his love for the original work, then deciding he can "fix it up" in a way that (I think) completely undermines it. I find it incredibly arrogant and disrespectful. Useless too. And less artistically ambitious.
Aazealh said:
What's ironic here (as throughout the rest of the thread, pretty much everything you accuse me of is something you're doing) is you're the one who made the authoritative claim.
Saying I think something is ridiculous and bad storytelling (not "writing") is an argument from my perspective of what constitutes something reasonable and not the author handwaving the craftsmanship of telling a story to emphasize certain themes. Merely objecting to that and stating a contrary position you get "butthurt" per Lithrael and toss out hundreds/thousands of words of fallacies, non sequiturs and idiotic personal jabs so you can feel like you "won," even though you later concede my point. You had to thoroughly blanket it under a warm coat of strawmen you'd built yourself and then knocked down for good measure, but at least you finally got around to admitting it. Congratulations on realizing you were being that guy who can't accept anyone have any opinions differing from his own.
I actually do appreciate your pointing out certain aspects of the story as they've made me reconsider my reactions on some level. It's a shame you chose to make useful contributions to my understanding the exceptions instead of the rule.
CowTip said:
Agreed. The "banding together" reaction of 9/11 was pretty much just an attempt to sway policy or curry favor. Just an hour or two after the second tower fell, I was in a lecture where these [American] professors began a "dialogue" to tell us how these attacks were a response to American foreign policy. At that point, the sympathy ended and the posturing to try and use these deaths in a way that furthered their policy objectives began.
Significantly absent from this dialogue was Sylvia Brown's input on the psychic visions she had at the time of the attacks. Oddly enough, I do not think her opinions played a factor in shaping future American foreign policy. Even more vexing, the "Jews planned 9/11" crowd, the "Neocons planned 9/11" crowd, and the "Aliens caused 9/11" crowd were, are, and will remain fringe positions despite the forceful assurances otherwise.
CowTip said:
Why does it "reflect poorly" on someone to take a work and then create another work that's different (a given considering one's a movie and one's a comic)? A movie has an entirely different set of considerations from a comic book. Does Grendel, the novel, reflect poorly on Beowulf, the epic poem, or is it just something that explores different ideas in a different style/setting/mood using a similar story as its base?
Hell, even what is ostensibly the same text almost always has multiple versions of itself floating around. Maybe I prefer the first edition printing of NovelX to the author's definitive edition (which is to say, a version where the author was able to use his clout to include stuff that an editor may have considered weaker material) or a studio cut to the director's cut. Authorial opinion is helpful but also objectively meaningless (merely subjectively meaningful). Even direct authorial action (for lack of a better term) is not some magic bullet that can compel a "reader" of a "text" to accept additions to a text or even elements of a text itself -- Everyone I know who enjoys The Matrix rejects the second and third Matrix movies even though they were in a certain sense equally "canonical." People holding this view have formulated our own narrative for The Matrix which explicitly rejects narrative that the Wachowski Bros set forth in Reloaded/Revolutions.
This is probably a bit much of a point to be making here, but oh well.
Vampire_Hunter_Bob
Cats are great
Denial said:
You can't really compaire the two; Grendel was using the story of Beowulf as a basis to tell an all new story about the character Grendel, barely using anything from the original source material. While the Watchmen movie was a near copy of a previous work.
Denial said:
Wow, you've spent all this time replying and you come up with this? Non-logic coupled with a "NO U" straight out of the kindergarten. I posted "let's just say it's the solution for people too stupid to understand the story." That's not a very authoritative tone right there. Insulting, but not authoritative. But even then, whatever I said doesn't change the fact you made an authoritative claim yourself: "The squid was shoddy storytelling. That's what it really comes down to."
Denial indeed.
Denial said:
No, it's not actually an "argument". It's your self-important yet unenlightened opinion.
Denial said:
Again, you get the order of things wrong. =) First, I said a group of people were too stupid to understand the story. Then you identified yourself as one of them. Then a variety of people made fun of you and grinded whatever pathetic bullshit you threw at them in an attempt to look like you weren't an ignorant, conceited and angry little man. Seriously, looks to me like you're the one who's butthurt here, replying days after to a discussion that's not only already over but should have never happened in the first place (not to mention replying without having anything to say but feeble passive-aggressive insults and pseudo-smart babble). And my, how butthurt you are. Not that I'm surprised, knowing the size of my enormous dick.
By the way, only in your delusional mind did I or anyone else concede anything to you. Please, stop trolling the thread and humiliating yourself. It's embarrassing and prevents normal discussion between sensible people who have a real interest in the comic book and its movie adaptation. There's nothing for you to "win" here (since that's apparently what you're after, projecting your puerile aspirations on me).
Denial said:
Hahaha, who are you kidding here. Look at your posts. I doubt the word "appreciate" accurately defines what you feel.
Denial said:
Your anecdote from your US school isn't a good example of the world's reaction to that event. In fact it's not even an example of it at all.
Denial said:
Hey look everyone! I think he's trying to be funny! Another failure though.
Denial said:
I don't have much to say to any of this, but I want it to be known that in no way do I think that no one was genuine in their support after 9/11. Just as I can feel bad about 20,000 people losing their lives to an earthquake overseas, I'm sure there was much sadness for what happened to America on that day. I just think that there are some places and people who probably didn't care that much about the loss of American lives. It's not so outlandish to assume those who hate America would relish in something like this happening and America has plenty of enemies.
CowTip said:
I bet an amount of people do feel bad and then they go their own way and forget all about it, all you have to do is change the tv station to something more up beat and you are now laughing even if people are suffering on another side of the world (some people do try to make a difference but they are the exception not the rule). That's pretty much my problem with the squid ending it pretty much affects the US as it doesn't makes itself feel in a global scale people really won't care until giant dead squids start falling over their roofs .
So (graphic novel ending) >>> (movie ending).
GG
Scorpio
Courtesy of Grail's doodling.
ELEKTRO said:
You're... joking. Right? A hefty bit of sarcasm? Something zany to put people in their place? Do people even use GG anymore, let alone in a serious (people are taking it seriously at least) discussion? A wildcard to throw everyone for a loop? It's the only way to have what you've written make sense.
Sorry, gg norekthnx bye.
Griffith
With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
You'll have to forgive Elektro, it's been a few years since bannings, anyway...
Again, the problem with that kind of argument to begin with is that it's based on the simplification of the story that's truly at the heart of this; i.e. highlight the most obvious and commonplace aspect of the ending for those that are only going to take it at face value anyway. It's reducing it to the most basic level of moral lesson (which isn't even the moral lesson of the original work), like discussing Romeo and Juliet as a parable about teen suicide; and willfully or not, ignoring all the other thematic and satirical elements that together, ya know, actually make Watchmen the achievement it is, and not just a hard-edged X-Men derivative it has become to so many now. This has been the unsung aspect of this whole ending pseudo-debate, which I call it because most aren't engaged enough in the material to even half-participate, and even if they were, then there'd be no debate, such as there isn't.
Again, the problem with that kind of argument to begin with is that it's based on the simplification of the story that's truly at the heart of this; i.e. highlight the most obvious and commonplace aspect of the ending for those that are only going to take it at face value anyway. It's reducing it to the most basic level of moral lesson (which isn't even the moral lesson of the original work), like discussing Romeo and Juliet as a parable about teen suicide; and willfully or not, ignoring all the other thematic and satirical elements that together, ya know, actually make Watchmen the achievement it is, and not just a hard-edged X-Men derivative it has become to so many now. This has been the unsung aspect of this whole ending pseudo-debate, which I call it because most aren't engaged enough in the material to even half-participate, and even if they were, then there'd be no debate, such as there isn't.
Griffith
With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
In one draft of my last post I made a reference to the movie as "Zach Snyder's Watchmen for Dummies" and while I thought this too strong a statement, I did think it was an idea worth exploring in photoshop, though a quick google search revealed I had not only been beaten to the punch, but twice over:
- Status