Who Watched the Watchmen? I Watched the Watchmen

TelClaven · Mar 14, 2009

WTF?

Nixon is 5th term President into 1985. US wins the Vietnam war with Demo-God level support. Vigilanties are using guns.

Did like the part when hippy chick sticks flower into muzzle of gun, then the squad volley fires into the crowd. Pretty stark imagery there.

I am so bloody confused as to what was going on, I have no idea what to think of that movie.

Gryphon · Mar 14, 2009

If you haven't read the comic, I doubt it would make any sense. I strongly suggest you go to your local library and see if they have a copy.

It really does make sense in context, I swear.

Finn · Mar 14, 2009

TelClaven said:
Did like the part when hippy chick sticks flower into muzzle of gun, then the squad volley fires into the crowd. Pretty stark imagery there.

It shows how really messed up the world of Watchmen is.

Dr. Waterhouse · Mar 14, 2009

Get thee to a comic book store and buy the trade paperback.

The comic is in its own way both more and less confusing:

Less confusing because the plot is laid out in more detail, the evolution of the characters makes more sense because you get the idea of these events happening over time, and you get a more full sense of context and what it's like to be like in that very odd world.

More confusing because the guy who wrote the comic, Alan Moore, has more in common with Virginia Woolf and Thomas Pynchon than other comic book writers. So brace yourself for unexplained flashbacks, juxtapositions of scenes with dialogue happening elsewhere, and some very heavy and intense philosophical ruminations.

The comic is better than the movie, although I'm surprised how much I like the way Billy Crudup humanizes Dr. Manhattan.

"All we ever see of stars are their old photographs." Beautiful line, beautifully delivered.

On the other hand, in the comic the dialogue on Mars about whether humankind deserves a future actually makes sense.

But seriously, I first read Watchmen when I was 14. It's probably the most important book in my life, because it just opened my eyes to all these amazing and provocative and sometimes crazy ideas. It's hugely rewarding.

Volksgrenadier2006 · Mar 14, 2009

Gryphon said:
If you haven't read the comic, I doubt it would make any sense. I strongly suggest you go to your local library and see if they have a copy.

It really does make sense in context, I swear.

Ive seen it in the Cinema yesterday evening.
I havent read the comix, but I dont get why everyone is so confused about this movie!?
It was clear and it was plain awesome!

Did like the part when hippy chick sticks flower into muzzle of gun, then the squad volley fires into the crowd.

It really makes the mood clear for the rest of the movie.
And it is such a powerful picture.
The movie really has that "300" mood in it, but besides that it also has a good and deep story. No character in it is black or white.
All the characters are reall humans instead.
I went to see this "weird comicbook superhero" movie and was amazed of how good it really was!
I am looking for this movie online, cause it will be in my personal top movies list for quite a while to come.
I would also like to have the books.

Dutchie · Mar 14, 2009

Saw it last weekend... thankfully I read the book first (book, not comic...its far more of a story than can be captured in the name 'comic'...) because I can see that the movie would be confusing.

The movie is a fabulous retelling of the book, with scene-for-scene renditions that are incredible. It didn't bring anything new to the story, the way an Iron Man or Spiderman movie does, but this is a one-off story not a segment of a larger mythology where it only needs to follow larger plot lines...

Wathmen the movie may have some difficulty, I fear, in that it is a superhero movie and so there are those who will not go to see it because it's 'not serious', but it is far deeper and requires thought and understanding which may turn off the looking-for-mindless-entertainment crowd... much like the original book it defies conventional categories and may therefore may be overlooked (beyond the early wathcers who know what this is about).

B_Munro · Mar 14, 2009

Well, it has a lot to do with the existential threat of nuclear warfare, which was rather on people's minds at the time: so it's necessarily going to have less resonance nowadays.

Sort of sorry they didn't go ahead with the giant you-know-what, but I think they gave a nod to it when they had an episode of the "Outer Limits" playing in one scene.

It is an AH movie, in that it's "what if there actually Masked Adventures? What might things have been like if there was an actual superman-level being...and he takes orders from the US government?" (ASB AH, admittedly...)

Bruce

gtrof · Mar 15, 2009

B_Munro said:
It is an AH movie, in that it's "what if there actually Masked Adventures? What might things have been like if there was an actual superman-level being...and he takes orders from the US government?" (ASB AH, admittedly...)

Bruce

That was my biggest issue with it. Don't get me wrong liked the movie do plan on picking it up on DVD when the time comes. I just didn't get why the US and Soviet Union were suddenly pushing the limits of peace? Maybe it is better explained in the book but it didn't seem to me that there was any real reason for the nuclear tension in the book. No Cuban Missile Crisis, Berlin, or convetional fighting in Europe.

Okay so the Soviets are upset by Dr. M, okay but he's been around since the 1960s IIRC, so why now in 1985 are they wishing to risk a nuclear war one they have less chance of 'winning' with Dr. M around? Even when he disapeared they still have to contend with a massive US arsenal that they can't destroy in a First Strike.

Also why did the Comedian kill Kennedy?

Emperor Norton I · Mar 15, 2009

gtrof said:
That was my biggest issue with it. Don't get me wrong liked the movie do plan on picking it up on DVD when the time comes. I just didn't get why the US and Soviet Union were suddenly pushing the limits of peace? Maybe it is better explained in the book but it didn't seem to me that there was any real reason for the nuclear tension in the book. No Cuban Missile Crisis, Berlin, or convetional fighting in Europe.

Okay so the Soviets are upset by Dr. M, okay but he's been around since the 1960s IIRC, so why now in 1985 are they wishing to risk a nuclear war one they have less chance of 'winning' with Dr. M around? Even when he disapeared they still have to contend with a massive US arsenal that they can't destroy in a First Strike.

Because the world has always relied on super heroes -and especially Doctor Manhattan- to solve all their international tension and especially the ones between the US and USSR. For most of the Cold war, they never had to deal with actually working out their issues on their own or face total decimation because they were protected (or at least the US was), and have relied on the heroes, so they've essentially remained somewhat like children in international affiars. So at the point where everyone is at the watermark of nuclear capability, they're suddenly left without their parents and sh** gets very real. And now, Dr. M is gone, so the Soviets go ahead and invade Afghanistan, and tensions rise from that.

Also why did the Comedian kill Kennedy?

I don't know as if it actually said he did, but I think it was implied. And I think it has something to do with him being a Nixon supporter and -like all the crazies in the book- a very conservative person, and being a nihilist who doesn't care.

Jesse · Mar 15, 2009

B_Munro said:
Well, it has a lot to do with the existential threat of nuclear warfare, which was rather on people's minds at the time: so it's necessarily going to have less resonance nowadays.

Well, it still works when you reread the comic. And I recently rewatched The Day After and Threads, they still made the buildup to nuclear war feel scary and real; the fact that I don't fear it much in reality isn't the issue, The Birds is still scary even though I don't fear birds will turn against humanity in real life. The problem is the movie just did a terrible job of maintaining a consistent building tension about nuclear war; once we got to the looong middle section involving Nite Owl and Silk Spectre's personal issues and Rorschach in prison, there was basically nothing to maintain the danger of nuclear war in the viewer's mind except those hamhanded scenes with Nixon in the Dr. Strangelove war room, which were too satirical-looking to be taken seriously.

Also, the long speech by you-know-who at the end of the comic did a good job tying everything back to the issue of nuclear war in a way that felt like it had some real-world resonance, but that speech was totally gutted in the movie and he basically just turned into a generic smug James Bond villain (with the minor twist that his scheme was not totally villainous).

gtrof · Mar 15, 2009

Jesse said:
there was basically nothing to maintain the danger of nuclear war in the viewer's mind except those hamhanded scenes with Nixon in the Dr. Strangelove war room, which were too satirical-looking to be taken seriously.

That was another thing that bugged me. Making the military and Nixon look eager for a nuclear war with the Russians. Especially the line about the liberals thinking themselves out of fission, and the American general who thought losing the East Coast wasn't too bad

I can't think either Nixon or the military would be so caliver about nuclear war espeically since Dr. M is no longer around to act as a ABM system.

Canis Lupus · Mar 15, 2009

gtrof said:
, and the American general who thought losing the East Coast wasn't too bad

Hate to tell you, but that really was the mindset of Cold War generals.

Canis Lupus · Mar 15, 2009

gtrof said:
Also why did the Comedian kill Kennedy?

It was amde clear in both the comic and the movie that The Comedian worked as a mercenary for the US Government on multiple occasions.

So he killed Kennedy under orders from "the powers that be", as it were.

Dr. Waterhouse · Mar 15, 2009

Of course Alan Moore's ideological excesses with respect to his indictment of the USA as a superpower aren't really something I buy into. But I still think Watchmen is great literature. It being great literature doesn't mean necessarily I agree with it.

As to "What would Rorshach do?" Hmmm. Vote Ron Paul?

(By the way, Rorshach kind goes to my point: probably no character in the history of literature has ever had a set of values and ideas as different from his creator as Rorshach. But in the end Alan Moore gives Rorshach an absolute and unyielding sense of personal integrity that's pretty ennobling, I think. You might walk away thinking Veidt's actions were necessary, but I sure as hell thought Rorshach was infinitely more sympathetic.)

Canis Lupus said:
It was amde clear in both the comic and the movie that The Comedian worked as a mercenary for the US Government on multiple occasions.

So he killed Kennedy under orders from "the powers that be", as it were.

Doraemon · Mar 15, 2009

Actually I saw the movie first, and it made sense for me.

Btw, is it just me or am I the only one who likes the movie ending better? Most of my friends who read the comic say that the comic ending was better, but to me the (SPOILER!!!) psychic alienwas a huge wtf moment. However, they definately could have done the Mars scene better though.

B_Munro · Mar 15, 2009

Emperor Norton I said:
Because the world has always relied on super heroes -and especially Doctor Manhattan- to solve all their international tension and especially the ones between the US and USSR. For most of the Cold war, they never had to deal with actually working out their issues on their own or face total decimation because they were protected (or at least the US was), and have relied on the heroes, so they've essentially remained somewhat like children in international affiars. So at the point where everyone is at the watermark of nuclear capability, they're suddenly left without their parents and sh** gets very real. And now, Dr. M is gone, so the Soviets go ahead and invade Afghanistan, and tensions rise from that.
.

What puzzled me was that Nixon & co. seemed to think that they could win a "survivable" war vs. the USSR. The US would be _less_ motivated than OTL to build a first-strike survivable arsenal (with Doc Manhattan, they have a functional if imperfect "star wars" defense) while the USSR has _more_ of a reason to build up and diversify it's arsenal. (IIRC, the number mentioned in the movie was 50,000 weapons, which seems low - OTL the Soviets had around 45,000 at the maximum - but perhaps that _just_ the ones on ICBMs, leaving out planes, medium-range rockets, etc.) So it seems unlikely that an even "semi-survivable" fist strike would be possible: why are they taking such a risk over goddamm Afghanistan? (Didn't the book have them invading Iran?)

And I can certainly see the the USSR starting to throw its weight around after it's sure Dr. Manhattan has gone for good - but to immediately risk nuclear war? Perhaps they don't _think_ they are taking a risk: why would the US start a fight it can't win over goddammed Afganistan? (This is the "Nixon is entirely crazy by this point, and has surrounded himself with crazy advisers" theory).

Bruce

Krall · Mar 16, 2009

B_Munro said:
(Didn't the book have them invading Iran?)

It was Afghanistan in the book as well, but the main worry was whether the USSR would follow the invasion of Afghanistan with an invasion of Pakistan. There were some instances of Soviet forces "accidentally" crossing the border into Pakistan.

Marius · Mar 16, 2009

Gryphon said:
If you haven't read the comic, I doubt it would make any sense. I strongly suggest you go to your local library and see if they have a copy.

I disagree. I haven't read the comic, but I enjoyed the movie. I am relatively familiar with the backstory though, so maybe that's why it still made sense to me.

Volksgrenadier2006 · Mar 16, 2009

Jesse said:
The problem is the movie just did a terrible job of maintaining a consistent building tension about nuclear war; once we got to the looong middle section involving Nite Owl and Silk Spectre's personal issues and Rorschach in prison, there was basically nothing to maintain the danger of nuclear war in the viewer's mind except those hamhanded scenes with Nixon in the Dr. Strangelove war room, which were too satirical-looking to be taken seriously.

I didnt mind that to be honoust.
Why would the public be made aware of a looming ww3?
I guess the government would keep it a secret for as long as possible and normal life would go on, just like it was being projected in the movie.
I share Emperor Norton's opinion on the way Nixon did things.

Emperor Akahito said:
Actually I saw the movie first, and it made sense for me.

Btw, is it just me or am I the only one who likes the movie ending better? Most of my friends who read the comic say that the comic ending was better, but to me the (SPOILER!!!) psychic alienwas a huge wtf moment. However, they definately could have done the Mars scene better though.

Where did u get the comic from if I may ask?
Id like to read it aswell.

Grimm Reaper · Mar 16, 2009

Most of the science was extremely dubious. In particular Dr Manhattan's impact on the arms race.

If during the Vietnam War he could intercept 60% of the Soviet strike while also destroying much of it on the ground then it almost makes sense that the US was able to crush North Vietnam but by 1985 that would still mean thousands of nukes hitting the US, assuming, which makes no sense, that his effectiveness in 1985 was somehow of the same percentages as in 1972.

On the other hand, if those were the figures for 1985 then you almost wonder why nothing happened in the 1960s or 1970s as any weapon capable of hitting 60% of the Soviet capacity in the mid-1980s would have been able to launch a successful pre-emption under JFK.