The Reading Rainbow Coalition discussion
Discussion
>
Watchmen - possible spoilers for both movie and book
date
newest »
newest »
Alan Moore is one of my favorite authors. The characters in Watchmen are fully realized in their actions, which is a nice departure from more mainstream comics. Some characters change (Nite Owl, Dr. Manhattan), and some (perhaps stubbornly) act as their "nature" demands (Rorschach, Ozymandias). The story is told as a complete history, wherein events 30 years before have heavy impact in the story proper.The art is difficult to describe. It was a "gritty" and "real" work for it's time, perhaps not so much now. The characters look a little cartoony, but not so much as to be silly. The action and angles are some of my favorites from any comic to date. I especially enjoy the zoom-in and zoom-out shots, such as the zoom on the smiley face button. Heck, the blood stained smiley face is such a powerful metaphor for the entire story.
I love this book. I discover different parts of the story to consider every time I read it.
I plan to see the movie this weekend (IMAX in Kansas City!) but I'm going to try to put no expectations on it. The book is clearly important enough to stand up on it's own. I hope the movie can share that same quality.
Cameron wrote: "I love this book. I discover different parts of the story to consider every time I read it."
Watchmen is indeed different everytime you read it.
I'm looking forward to the animated short they made for the Black Freighter, I'll really miss seeing it in the actual film though; the bits of the comic book where the conversations about the coming nuclear war were layered over top of the dialogue in Black Freighter were fantastic.
Watchmen is indeed different everytime you read it.
I'm looking forward to the animated short they made for the Black Freighter, I'll really miss seeing it in the actual film though; the bits of the comic book where the conversations about the coming nuclear war were layered over top of the dialogue in Black Freighter were fantastic.
I've been working on my reread for a few hours every day for about a week, and I'm about halfway through as of this morning. I'm taking 3-7 minutes on every page, and it's amazing how much it's paying off. Next time through I'm considering taking notes.Like many fans of the work I'm not looking for the book to be transcribed to the screen, or be nearly as good. All I want is a well meditated message for the masses as to what an epic achievement it is.
Aaron wrote: "I saw the movie. It is a good distillation of the overall story. Much of the subtext was lost but nothing was sacrificed that hurt the main story overall. I'll discuss it more once I hear from some..."Ack, I can't go see it until Saturday night! I better stay the f**k off twitter.
Mod
I feel that to people such as you, who have read the book, will think this. As for people like me who haven't, it was just 2 hours and 45 minutes of amazing visuals, so-so plot, and radioactive blue wang.
Obviously Watchmen is many things; for me though, it's best read as a parable about power, and what happens when you put your trust in so-called heroes. Though a less captivating character than, say, Rorschach, I think Veidt is really the critical figure here. Sorry about the length of this post (but not sorry about the politics: it's a political book).When I first read Watchmen, Veidt reminded me of Pyle in Greene's The Quiet American: he's an idealist for whom the ends justify terrible means. In contemporary terms, he's a George W. Bush or a Tony Blair, and the US-UK catalogue of invasion, torture and rendition are real-world examples of turning into what we thought we were fighting - of joining the Black Freighter.
On re-reading, though, I think Veidt is actually worse. He isn't a zealot like Bush/Blair because he doesn't believe in the struggle he seeks to engage the public in; neither does he engineer that struggle for personal ends; instead, he invents an awful but fictitious threat, sacrificing thousands and ensnaring the world in a great lie in order to bring about a new age. For Veidt, the only way to shock us out of our false consciousness is through terror. In this, he is very like Islamic militants such as Ayman al-Zawahiri or the GIA in Algeria in the 90s, who commited atrocities in order to force Muslims out of their supposedly corrupt, complacent state. In the same way, Veidt is similar to the Leo Struass-influenced neoconservatives in the U.S. like Wolfowitz, Perle and Rumsfeld, because he's committed to a 'noble lie' that will give people a sense of purpose and unity in the face of a common threat. For Veidt, the founding myth of the 'New Society' that the John Cale quotes refer to is the alien squid creature; for the neocons, it was the Soviets, and now al-Quaeda.
Moore leaves us with a glimpse of hope - that Rorschach's diary will be found and published, exposing Veidt's lie. But is this really hopeful? After all, it would undermine the East-West peace, returning us to our old conflicts and robbing the New York deaths of any purpose. I think this is the only right thing to do, as Rorschach knew - but Rorschach is an uncompromising psychopath, and how many of us want to be like him? Perhaps this is one reason why so many people have supported (and are supporting) the call to war in the years following September 11 - it's hard to accept that innocents have died for no good reason than it is to incorporate the tragedy into a great narrative of heroism, of a war between good and evil.
Anyone agree/disagree, or see other contemporary resonances in the book?
Mod
http://www.goodreads.com/poll/show/10...
Ack, I still haven't seen the movie!@Self Propelled
I don't think I would classify Veidt as a Bush/Blair figure, or as any sort of extremist. He has his political beliefs, but to me they don't seem present at all in his plan. He has great respect for life in all of its forms, and surrounds himself with organic beauty. He has respect for history, but that has only helped him to become who he is, and showed him his potential, not aimed that potential towards his goal. He has great moral and emotional misgivings in his plan, but he sees it as the only way to save so many more, and he is the only one with the private power to do so.
I have never been able to look at him as a villain, but rather as a victim of his own intellect. In many ways he and the comedian are identical, in that they both fully understand the horror of both the atomic age and Veidt's master plan. Veidt is nothing if not sorry, and yet his indomitable spirit garnered from his global Odyssey has cursed him with the clarity of mind and spirit to see his horrible plan through to the neccessary end. I felt like he did what had to be done, and am horrified by it, but his remorse shows his sanity.
One other thing to consider: While Rorschach's journal may be discovered and even believed, much of the political tension in the world has already been undone within a few hours of his death. By the time it comes up in the "Crank File" it may already be safe to reveal the truth, as humanity will have already glimpsed the possibility of peace and clutched wildly for it.
Dram wrote: "Ack, I still haven't seen the movie!@Self Propelled
I don't think I would classify Veidt as a Bush/Blair figure, or as any sort of extremist. He has his political beliefs, but to me they don't..."
Interesting points! - I wonder if others feel similarly sympathetic towards Veidt?
I agree that his plan isn't politically motivated - but he's the most dangerous sort of idealist, who professes 'respect for life in all of its forms', yet is willing to kill thousands in pursuit of his conception of the greater good. That's why he's an extremist, in my view.
I also disagree with your optimism about the stability of the peace he's created, but this is hard to provide evidence for either way. I suppose I just don't believe in instantaneous shifts in global consciousness. What other event in global history has ever achieved this? Not even the Holocaust or the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which were all even more terrible.
Good to have some contrasting views.
Haven't seen it... still...But if one more guy at work complains about how Dr. Manhattan's showing his long island, I'm going to ninja kick them in the face. You reassemble yourself from nothing and have a touch of omnipresence and then you can walk around butt naked too for all I care...seeesh.I've only had a chance to read through the book once and oogle the pictures briefly a second time (my dad hijacked it afterward to read it) but I enjoyed it much more than I thought I would. It's a comic book that you have to concentrate a little bit and actually think when reading and that will scare a whole lot of people away right there. Or they'll read it and miss most of it. But my favorite character wandered from being Dr. Manhattan to Night Owl II.
As for the discovery of Rorschach's journal, I don't think it would have any lasting impact on the peace of the world. Any effect it had I believe would be temporary. Like he said earlier in the book, man is rotten to the core (something along those lines... not sure exact quote). We can try to do good and do right, much like the Comedian did in the form of working as a super solider in various wars while still being someone who was a rapist and shot a pregnant woman. But under that all, humanity is full of dark urges and drives.
My .02.
I think the difference between Ozymandias and Bush/Blair is the guilt. You get the sense that he hates himself for doing this, especially in the meditation scene with Dr. Manhattan. Whereas Bush used his tragedy to further his agenda and push his political party, Veidt seems to genuinely believe this is how to save the world. Although his corporation will surely benefit in the new world, and the Millennium ads look promising. I was really disappointed in the actor who plays him in the movie. He seemed less fatherly, less thoughtful, and more like most people who find they scored well on their SATs - arrogant and pretentious, sounding more like a traditional super-villain.
When I first read the book in high school, I tried to power through it, skipping the back matter and the pirate comics, and I regretted it on later readings because some of my favorite moments are in the apocrypha, like the psych profile on Dr. Manhattan and the Russian's attitude towards him. Hopefully some of that will make it to the DVD.
Yeesh, I told myself I wasn't just going to compare the book and the film. Oh well, maybe next post.
Misterworld wrote: "I think the difference between Ozymandias and Bush/Blair is the guilt. You get the sense that he hates himself for doing this, especially in the meditation scene with Dr. Manhattan. Whereas Bush ..."True, that's a real difference. Most messianic types can't let themselves doubt for a minute that they're doing the right thing. Maybe because Veidt's idealism is pretty much based on his own (extreme utilitarian) reasoning rather than a religion or ideology, there is room for doubt and remorse. Only after the fact though - sorry, all you dead people!
I saw the movie this past Saturday, and as previously stated on Twitter I was disappointed.
Roe wrote: "It's a comic book that you have to concentrate a little bit and actually think when reading and that will scare a whole lot of people away right there. Or they'll read it and miss most of it."
But now, in relation to Roe's comment, I'm surrounded by people who went and saw the film, are now reading the comic book, and are all saying "Hey, this book is all wrong! In the movie..."
I cannot stand people who judge books by their movies.
I suppose I'll wait to further elaborate on my thoughts concerning the film.
Roe wrote: "It's a comic book that you have to concentrate a little bit and actually think when reading and that will scare a whole lot of people away right there. Or they'll read it and miss most of it."
But now, in relation to Roe's comment, I'm surrounded by people who went and saw the film, are now reading the comic book, and are all saying "Hey, this book is all wrong! In the movie..."
I cannot stand people who judge books by their movies.
I suppose I'll wait to further elaborate on my thoughts concerning the film.
I saw on Wondermark that David Malki is going to write a novelization of Watchmen. I guess after that it'll be a TV show developed by JJ Abrams. And then Warren Ellis can make it into a comic book.
Mod
for now, a question... (spoilerrific)
do you think that the ending of the movie was a better or worse ending than the book's? why?
I understand the squid would be harder to make work on film, but I don't like the replacement as much. Some of it's because I don't like the idea of using Dr. Manhattan as a scapegoat. Maybe it's because the squid-monster was more a symbol for all the campy scifi silliness in comics, and how all that was a metaphor for our earthly human fears that the book is about. All the Twilight Zone and Outer Limits monsters were usually allegory for a more human emotional problem, and I think that's what the squid's all about. I also like the idea that the end of Watchmen, the deep psychological three-dimensional characters and the story that works in layers, what ends this is campy b-movie monsters. It's sort of like the history of comics in reverse.
With both endings, I wonder how long the peace will last. Would Dr. Manhattan have to come back to keep scaring people? How long would it take other scientists to trace the real origin of the attack? Even if it's never discovered, how many years would pass before the nations start bickering again? After World War II, the cold war started almost immediately, so maybe not too long.
I've been purposely avoiding this discussion til I finished. Everyone makes some very good points. So here's my point of view... I saw the movie after reading about 1/4 of the book, and I was impressed by the visuals. A lot of the shots were taken right from panels in the book. I think that the major plot points were there, but because there's no way to fit all of the tiny details in the movie, it loses somthing. Part of the beauty and impact of the story comes from the details, the side stories. The whole Black Freighter/nuclear holocaust parts contribute to the feeling of fear that is lacking in the movie.
As for Veidt, I think he is arrogant but idealistic. He chose to kill thousands of people to save the world. It's the same sort of "means to an end" that brought about the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, etc. So, yeah he goes about it in a terrible way, but can you really fault him? Is it better to kill a few to save everyone (like Veidt), or to hold the truth, one individual life, above that of the whole world (like Rorschach)? It's really two different ways of looking at the same problem, like 2 different types of heroes. I think different people identify with different characters. I know Rorschach's a sociopath, but there is something admirable about him. He puts truth, what he believes is right, above everything else, even his own life.
Personally, I liked the book ending better. I liked Dr. Manhattan, and I think it was wrong to use him as a scapegoat. I do think that the book ending would not work in the moviewithout all of the set up. Either way, it's hard to tell if the peace will last. I think using a potential alien threat is more effective, because it really becomes us (the Earth) against them. Peace, in any era, is fleeting, but I doubt the Cold War type of nuclear threats wouldn't happen again. I dunno, I don't really know enough or care enough about politics to be able to predict how governments would react. Maybe if Rorschach's journal came out, the world would turn against Veidt, but still be united.
That's all I got right now...
I wonder if Rorschach's journal would be believed by anyone. There's always the conspiracy theorists - it might end up with something like the people who think 9/11 was caused by Bush to steal gold or whatever. It's annoyingly persistent, but no one takes it seriously.
Mod
it's interesting to me that Watchmen stands heads and shoulders *still* above most renditions of what it would mean if superheroes walked among us. they are in politics, merchandising, and they are superstars but they are also lonely, mocked, abused. not very many tv shows/movies/books show this range and scope of reality.
on a sidenote, i really want to watch the movie again if only to see Rorschach terrorize prison inmates. scary mofo!
I agree w/ Denise. The ending is mostly irrelevant. The characters and their role in and interactions with society are the whole point. I actually think that's why the movie isn't making as much money as they predicted... people go in expecting an action movie, and instead get social and political commentary via super heroes.
I don't know if the ending is irrelevant, but I don't think it's the most important part of the story. The story really isn't the most important part of the book. Well, that is to say that the stuff that the characters do isn't what the book's about; it's about exploring who these people are and what their world is like. The same is true of a lot of good scifi, stories that are basically excuses to tour these worlds and meet characters. Snow Crash comes to mind.Since the month is almost over, I thought I'd mention that if you like Watchmen you might try Astro City. Watchmen's about deconstructing these heroic archetypes and finding out what makes them tick, Astro City is about putting the dissected parts back together and making better characters. It's pretty easy to find at most bookstores and online, it doesn't matter which one you read they're all great.
Any other suggested reading?
I saw the movie before I started reading the novel. I'm still not done reading, but I like the book better, so far. I love the side-stories; they add so much more depth to the story and the Watchmen universe as a whole.
Misterworld wrote: "My heart would be broken if I sat down to watch Watchmen in theaters and wound up watching Dr. Manhattan fight a glowing red Al Qaeda rival. "Heh. I'm sure one of the upcoming comic adaptations will get there, or something similar. Anyone know of comics that have successfully tackled 'war on terror' themes? Perhaps something slightly less hokey than Batman & Superman telling NY firemen that "you guys are the real heroes"?
Finally saw the film version - pretty pleased. I thought the scapegoating of Dr. Manhattan works well as a replacement for the unworkable-on-the-screen squid, and Rorschach in particular is excellent. Inevitably a lot of depth and detail is lost, but I was pleasantly surprised that Snyder managed to graduate from abs 'n leather kilts to this. If it prompts more people to read the comic, all the better.
Oh, and @Misterworld: another great comic that digs into the real people behind the costumes is Alias . The main character is an ex-superhero who hung up her cape after being plagued by a lack of self-esteem and her inability to control her powers. Really good stuff.
Mod
feel free to keep posting even though we are moving on to a new book. i know it is a daunting read, and not everyone has seen the movie yet... but hop to it! ;)
The Reading Rainbow Coalition
Books mentioned in this topic
Alias, Vol. 1 (other topics)The Quiet American (other topics)
Since the movie is coming out this month, you are more than welcome to post observations about it too! Even if you haven't read the book but watched the movie, please chime in here as well! It will be interseting to hear what non-comic book readers thought about it.