Watchmen (with spoilers)

[Dan]

I didn't know if this should go under movies, comics, or books. I picked movies b/c if it weren't for the movie I never would have heard of this.

Anyway, I finished the book and am looking forward to seeing it on screen. I was a little surprised with the sudden ending and kind of want to talk about it. I also want to talk about the comic-within-the comic that rva pointed out in the IHAQ thread. And other things that maybe I was supposed to get and didn't, or whatever.

So, ummm, I'm not going to use the spoiler tag b/c I put it in the thread title.

So why do you think it's one of "the most celebrated graphic novels of all time" or whatever the trailer claims? Is it b/c of the depth and history of the characters? Is it b/c of the sort of radical point that Moore makes at the end about how a common larger enemy would unite all lesser enemies?

I'm not so sure I believe that would work so well. People are still people and they are full of hatred. Like in WWII - there was still blatent racism amongst the American troops despite having a common enemy. How did the world receive this book when it came out?

[rva]

I don't think Moore is trying to say Veidt's plot would work.  He at least leaves the door open to saying it might not work, if not outright foreshadowing it's failure, depending on you interpretation.

Let's say it doesn't work.  Then you're stuck with some grim truths, namely:

1)  The human race is so fucked that even the smartest person in the world can't solve hatred and wars.
2)  Millions of people will have died for nothing.
3)  The "bad guy" (or at least the wrong guy) will have won, because the "good guys" let him and they'll have to live with it.
4)  And if the truth is exposed and we are better off for it... the book makes it clear that it's going to be because some hateful crazy dude like Rorscach's right wing racist friends.  So those guys will actually be the "good guys" and silk moth and night owl will be "bad guys."

But say it does work.  Then you're stuck with some other unsavory options:

1)  Everyone is living a lie, which is no good in and of itself.  But think about the implications of the lie itself.  If the plan it works it would mean that the only way to make people not hate other people is to give them something they hate even more.  It's almost a triumph of hate over love.  Not exactly a cheery depiction of humanity. 

2)  Humans will still be leading hateful lives fueled by primarily rage.  And really a giant alien space squid is no more mythical than the notions driving racists and other nutjobs right now.

So do we want the plan to work or not?  What makes the ending tough to swallow isn't because someone died or the heroes got there too late.  If that happened, we'd be sad, but we'd say "If only he could have done X, or Y."  The way this works out we have no idea what we even want to happen.  Some people who are living, we kind of want them to die.  Some of the dead we want to live.  But then again, we're not sure.  And actually at the end of the story, the outcome is still somewhat in the protagonists' hand.  They are not helpless against fate, in the regular way we think about it.  What they are helpless against is the cold truth of ontological ambiguity.  There is no meaning.

But even the lack of meaning is not what really hurts.  What hurts most is the fact that deep down, we *know* this... and yet we can't stop trying to fashion some kind of meaning anyway.  Just like if there is nothing out there to hate... we'll invent something.

There is no satisfactory answer to the question of "What should happen next?" but the thing is, you can't stop yourself from thinking about it.  That's why Dr. Manhattan is so pivotal to the story.   The irony is that you go through the story thinking Dr. Manhattan is so far reviewed from being human, yet in the end he's the one who ends up illustrating  and embracing humanity more than anyone.

To me, it's the finest work of existential fiction ever written.  But then, I'm kind of an existentialist.  I think that no matter what your personal outlook or philosophy on life is, it's reflected in that book. 

[Dan]

I'm not sure I really know what existential fiction is, but I'll take your word for it. I do still have questions, though.

I know Rorscach is supposed to be right wing... but what makes him right wing precisely? I found him to be one of the most intriguing characters even if he really had no depth.

What was the deal with the comic within the comic? I read what wikipedia had about it, and it makes sense that it was supposed to be a parallel story discussing one's loss of innocence even as they try to do what's good and right. Is that it? Or is there more? I guess that theme runs through the whole story - Veidt is trying to do what he thinks is good and right, and so is Rorscach, etc, and they have different outcomes and ideas.

What was the purpose of the newstand guy? Was he just a foil so the author could discuss world events and how they affect us at home?

What was the point of showing that Sally Jupiter loved the Comedian in the final frames?

Why do Laurie and Dan feel the need to be in disguise? Because they sprang Rorscach from jail, or for larger reasons like they want to start fresh, etc?

And strangely, thinking about the character of Dr. Manhattan, he's referred to as a God at one point. And he really is. Moore created all these characters who are superheroes but are really just people who dress up in masks and fight crime. They don't have any superpowers or abilities or anything, and thus its less science fiction then most superhero stories. Except for Dr. Manhattan... and he can do ANYTHING, which almost makes him boring. Like, I'd think in a typical superhero story you'd have someone with one or two cool abilities but also have weaknesses. This creates a good story structure. Like, without kryptonite Superman would be invincible and that would be a boring story. So Moore has this one superhuman or god or whatever...and a bunch of 'regular' people. When the character of Dr. Manhattan is introduced I was thinking "wow, there's so many cool things you can do with this" but then as I was reading I was realizing that he's the least interesting guy there because his character doesn't have anything to overcome (although you just point out that he embraces humanity the most, so he had that).

Hmm. I'm not sure where I'm going with this. Maybe it was just to think that this story is mostly NOT about 'superheroes' even though all the main characters are such and the whole premise is based around how one of them died and the ensuing investigation.

[rva]

The easiest parallel to draw is between the character in "Marooned" and Veidt.  And what happens in the end to the "Marooned" character is perhaps a bit of foreshadowing.  Also, do you know Shelley's poem Ozymandias? 

All of it is planting the seed that maybe Veidt's plot is doomed to failure.  Whether it is failure on a pure metaphysical level (ie. what he did was immoral) or a real failure of his plan falling apart (it gets exposed, people still kill each other, etc.)  is up to the reader.

"Marooned" is not about lost innocence but more about coming to terms with your guilt.  The guy did all sorts of dastardly things-- desecrated the graves of his fellow sailors, killed the person who found his boat, etc. When he kills his wife, it's not the Black Freighter's fault.  It's because he's become so consumed with hatred that he's just killing everyone. 

That's why in the end it turns out the Black Freighter never had any plans to take over his town in the first place.  It was coming for him all along, because he was never innocent... not even at the beginning of the story.  And he realizes this, and he understands that it's the fate he deserves and at this point he embraces it-- as fair punishment/justice served or maybe he's still lying to himself a bit and he really does want to join the crew because he enjoyed what he did. 

What does "innocent intent" mean in the comic?  Isn't it at some level an oxymoron?

[Doug]

Saw a new preview for it last night before I watched "Push".  The movie looks badassed on so many levels.  I can't wait...4 more weeks 

[Dan]

So how do you guys suspect the movie will vary from the printed material? I heard the ending is going to be changed, but the ending is so much a pivotal part of the story. What have you heard? What are you expecting?

[rva]

I don't see how you can put a giant squid in New York that kills people with telepathically with it's dying brain blast  and not have it be cheesy and stupid on film  (and tbf, it's kind of stupid in the comic, too).

If they change that to something like where Ozymandias mocks up a giant space ship and maybe convinces Dr. Manhattan to blow up half of New York in some catastrophic but spectacular way that convinces people it is aliens... I'm cool with that.  But I hear they actually changed the tone of the ending, which I think is likely to be a disaster.

[Dan]

Tales of the Black Freighter trailer. I gather from watching this that it is NOT a part of the film. Hmmm.

[rva]

Seeing this film was a pretty interesting experience.  I'd say that out of the people at the theater, roughly 50% *hated* it.  There were giggles and groans.  Several people walked out in the middle.  Talk afterwards was like "What the hell was that?  That sucked."  I'd say another 40% were more subdued, but obviously very confused as to exactly what happened and why such a big deal was made out of it.  And 10% liked it a lot, including me.

But I think that's kind of right.  If you haven't read the graphic novel, I think you're going to be pretty confused.  They have a lot to cover, and even then they don't get it all.  So there's a lot of skipping back and forth and still it's long, and it doesn't cover many of the angles in the novel deep enough for the full impact to be felt.

If you have not read the graphic novel, and you're the kind of person that doesn't read graphic novels... you'll hate it.  It's got a lot of melodramatic and larger-than-life scenes and stuff happening.  So much larger-than-life that it goes beyond Michael Bay type explosions and into just... weirdness.  Yet at the root of it, it's really a kind of dark look at human nature which you have to be a bit of an introspective, gloomy, dark person (ie. the kind of person who tends to read graphic novels) to dig it.

If you have read the book, then you can fill in a lot of the gaps and jumping back-and-forth in the movie with your knowledge of the book.  And I think that you would probably come away thinking that they did about as good a job possible in just about every aspect from costuming to actor choice to the necessary changes to fit it into a 3 hour movie.  And I think you will enjoy it.  You won't however, enjoy it as much as the book because you never do. 

So in the end I suppose, it was a somewhat pointless endeavor.  It just leaves those who haven't read the book angry and/or confused.  And those who have read the book-- even if they think they did a good job-- will still prefer the book.

[Hell Toupee]

I'm going to see it tomorrow, but I just had to post this parody.

[Wherle]

Seeing this film was a pretty interesting experience.  I'd say that out of the people at the theater, roughly 50% *hated* it.  There were giggles and groans.  Several people walked out in the middle.  Talk afterwards was like "What the hell was that?  That sucked."  I'd say another 40% were more subdued, but obviously very confused as to exactly what happened and why such a big deal was made out of it.  And 10% liked it a lot, including me.

But I think that's kind of right.  If you haven't read the graphic novel, I think you're going to be pretty confused.  They have a lot to cover, and even then they don't get it all.  So there's a lot of skipping back and forth and still it's long, and it doesn't cover many of the angles in the novel deep enough for the full impact to be felt.

If you have not read the graphic novel, and you're the kind of person that doesn't read graphic novels... you'll hate it.  It's got a lot of melodramatic and larger-than-life scenes and stuff happening.  So much larger-than-life that it goes beyond Michael Bay type explosions and into just... weirdness.  Yet at the root of it, it's really a kind of dark look at human nature which you have to be a bit of an introspective, gloomy, dark person (ie. the kind of person who tends to read graphic novels) to dig it.

If you have read the book, then you can fill in a lot of the gaps and jumping back-and-forth in the movie with your knowledge of the book.  And I think that you would probably come away thinking that they did about as good a job possible in just about every aspect from costuming to actor choice to the necessary changes to fit it into a 3 hour movie.  And I think you will enjoy it.  You won't however, enjoy it as much as the book because you never do. 

So in the end I suppose, it was a somewhat pointless endeavor.  It just leaves those who haven't read the book angry and/or confused.  And those who have read the book-- even if they think they did a good job-- will still prefer the book.

I saw this Friday and have been trying to figure out how to put into words how I felt about it, and I think you did it for me. I didn't hate it, but didn't love it either. I feel like they tried hard to get it right. Almost too hard, really. I'm honestly surprised they didn't Hollywoodize it more. I feel badly for anyone seeing it who hasn't read the comic, because this seems like an attempt to appease the fanboys. I'd probably give it about a 3/5.

**EDIT**

Oops. Just realized you placed yourself among those who loved it, so my comment about you expressing my thoughts isn't entirely true. Again, I didn't love it, didn't hate it, and wasn't confused by it. I liked it, but even knowing the source material, it depressed me a bit. It was much darker and more violent than I figured Hollywood would allow.

[Rafe]

I am rather looking forward to seeing the film, hopefully in a cinema. The reactions of the crowd that you saw it with aren't a surprise, rva. Glad you liked it, though.

I've seen the trailers, and it's all pretty stylistically impressive.

[rva]

Yeah, I realized the exact problem with the movie today. One of the major things with Watchmen is how it subverts all your preconceptions of superheroes and comic books.  Only if you don't read comics, you have no preconceptions.

Because when it came out, there were a lot of lame-ass superheroes.  And the lamest superheroes of them all were the old ones who'd been around since 1940.  Like you knew Captain America, Superman and Batman (pre- Dark Knight) would never lose, and they'd always do the right thing.  It seemed like they'd actually been a lot bolder in the 70's with heroes dabbling in drugs or entering politics but by '86 it was all Reagan-era "Just Say No to Drugs" crap again.  And DC especially was saddled with the worst writers and characters.  I mean, I always read Marvel because DC totally sucked ass.

So when you saw the Comedian, or Rorschach, it was nothing you'd ever seen in comics before.  I mean, the Comedian killed people just because he was an asshole.  And while Rorschach had a Punisher-like moral code he had no excuse.  No one shot Rorschach's wife or kids.  They did kill his mom, but he thought that was proper.  And Moore added a political overtone as well where it was like if Captain America took his patriot schtick too far and became an uber-right wing US-or-die terrorist.  If you aren't a comics fan, all this is lost on you.

It's like if you watch musicals a lot.  Say someone screws over the protagonist.  Then the protagonist runs over to the dude and yells at him, maybe even kicks his ass.  If you're used to musicals you'd be like "Wait, there was a major event and no song and dance number."  If you don't watch musicals, you'd be like "Dude just got screwed.  Why the hell would he suddenly break into dance and sing a song to an invisible audience?!"

So yeah, if you don't read comics then you have nothing invested in the comic moral code.  You just take characters at face value and Comedian is an a-hole and Rorschach is a psycho.  Their behavior is less shocking than if they'd actually acted like 40's style costumed avengers.

[Dan]

Okay, so I saw it and I 'think' I quite liked it. I mean, it was very pretty to look at. I felt they covered almost all of the important angles of the book. I loved the music. I enjoyed my time in the theater. So that's all good, right?

I just can't figure out if it's something to recommend to others, and I'm having a hard time understanding if I would have enjoyed it if I hadn't just read the book. I know that the trailer for it was SO cool looking that I wanted to know all about this, and thus I went and read the book. The book was badass, and I'm very glad I read it, but I knew by the end that it wasn't was I was expecting when I saw the trailer. So even though I knew it to be true going in, I'm still slightly disappointed that the trailer was misleading to me. A very odd and conflicting emotion.

But overall it was a cool movie. I think they did an excellent job with the incredible amount of backstory and fit as much as they possibly could into the thing. I bought the characters as the actors were great. The make-up was pretty good - it's hard to use the same actor for someone who ages over forty years in some cases, and they were pretty convincing there (except for maybe Sally Jupiter, but I'll let one of those slide).  Again - the use of color within the story was tremendous and I loved the costumes and the cinematography. I think the 'impending doom of nuclear war' angle should have been played up more, but that's being picky. Really: a good time.

In the end I find RVA's point of view and words to be pretty accurate, so I'll leave it at that.

[JohnnyRoyale]

http://randomville.com/?p=2372