(SPOILERS) Watchmen is the greatest book ever written

1131415161719»

Posts

  • WildcatWildcat Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    I think the Absolute edition is getting a rerelease too, so I'll get that.

    Wildcat on
  • TubeTube Administrator, ClubPA admin
    edited November 2008
    I have to tell you: if your definition of "softie" includes thinking it's a nice thing that she fell in love with a man whom raped her, then you and I are operating with very different dictionaries.

    The man raped her. There's no do-overs in that little game: you rape someone, you're an evil, sick bastard. The idea of a woman falling in love with that person, at any point in the future, immediately tells of a broken woman with mental illness.

    Or maybe people are more complicated than any blanket statements would indicate.

    Tube on
    Hobnail wrote: »
    This forum has taken everything from me
    This hurts but I deserve it

  • mattharvestmattharvest Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    I thought he tried to rape her, but then Hooded Justice stopped him. Am I remembering things wrong?

    I may have missed the part where 'attempted rape' is morally different from 'actual rape', but you're right they didn't show him physically completing the act.

    That said, frankly, I think rape has occurred as soon as you're sexually violated, e.g. as soon as he had her pinned to the ground, his pants down, and her skirt up.

    mattharvest on
  • mattharvestmattharvest Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    I have to tell you: if your definition of "softie" includes thinking it's a nice thing that she fell in love with a man whom raped her, then you and I are operating with very different dictionaries.

    The man raped her. There's no do-overs in that little game: you rape someone, you're an evil, sick bastard. The idea of a woman falling in love with that person, at any point in the future, immediately tells of a broken woman with mental illness.

    Or maybe people are more complicated than any blanket statements would indicate.

    I'm very curious about what 'complication' you think can possibly be laid on anyone, much less The Comedian, that somehow renders their rape of a human being as anything other than monstrous, or how a rapist is ever anything but a rapist.

    It is true that a rapist may repent, and honestly believe the rape was wrong, but they're still a rapist. Rapist isn't like a profession, where you're only a rapist while 'actively engaging in rape', any more than 'child molester', etc. Rapists are rapists.

    mattharvest on
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape.

    Robos A Go Go on
  • QuothQuoth the Raven Miami, FL FOR REALRegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    I have to tell you: if your definition of "softie" includes thinking it's a nice thing that she fell in love with a man whom raped her, then you and I are operating with very different dictionaries.

    The man raped her. There's no do-overs in that little game: you rape someone, you're an evil, sick bastard. The idea of a woman falling in love with that person, at any point in the future, immediately tells of a broken woman with mental illness.

    Or maybe people are more complicated than any blanket statements would indicate.

    I'm very curious about what 'complication' you think can possibly be laid on anyone, much less The Comedian, that somehow renders their rape of a human being as anything other than monstrous, or how a rapist is ever anything but a rapist.

    It is true that a rapist may repent, and honestly believe the rape was wrong, but they're still a rapist. Rapist isn't like a profession, where you're only a rapist while 'actively engaging in rape', any more than 'child molester', etc. Rapists are rapists.

    Hey so did you read up on Stockholm syndrome or should I post the link again? Because I would call that a complication.

    Sometimes people get raped by people they know and admire and respect and aren't sure how to react. Sometimes people commit rape for reasons that have nothing to do with mental derangement or lack of morals. Sometimes the victims think the rape was their fault. Sometimes the rapist apologizes and the victim forgives them. Not every rape is the same, not every rapist has the same motives, and not every victim has the same reaction. Not to mention that sexual relationships were much more complicated in their own way back in that fictionalized time period.

    In this case, I'd put my money on Stockholm syndrome and let it ride.

    Quoth on
  • mattharvestmattharvest Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Quoth wrote: »
    Hey so did you read up on Stockholm syndrome or should I post the link again? Because I would call that a complication.
    I've read plenty about it. That's not a complication about the rapist, it's an alleged complication about the victim. Maybe you missed the part in your own link where it's acknowledged that the "syndrome" is not a recognized psychological disorder, and instead is more a construct of fiction than of science and therapy.
    Sometimes people get raped by people they know and admire and respect and aren't sure how to react.
    What's your point here? It explains why those people stay with the rapist, but it doesn't explain why the rapist is anything but a rapist. You may have misunderstood my point: I don't find it implausible AT ALL that she went with The Comedian. I was simply disagreeing that the relationship should be viewed as healthy at all. It was a monstrous thing, born of the monstrous thing done to her. Their relationship, and especially her delusion that it was loving, was nothing but one long symptom of her assault.
    Sometimes people commit rape for reasons that have nothing to do with mental derangement or lack of morals.
    False. Name one example.
    Sometimes the victims think the rape was their fault.
    Again, that's just an explanation for how a victim can be manipulated, I don't see how it's relevant to my point at all.
    Sometimes the rapist apologizes and the victim forgives them.
    This 'forgiveness' does nothing to obviate the rapist's status as a rapist. Rape - like all crimes - is committed against not just the individual victim, but society. The victim has no special ability to say that the rapist is "okay" now.
    Not every rape is the same, not every rapist has the same motives, and not every victim has the same reaction.
    Again, how is this relevant to my point?
    Not to mention that sexual relationships were much more complicated in their own way back in that fictionalized time period.
    So, now you're repeating what I actually said to start the conversation? My entire initial post on this was about that.
    In this case, I'd put my money on Stockholm syndrome and let it ride.
    I wouldn't, since it's not a real thing, but hey I'm just the kind of guy who relies on experts when my own training isn't sufficient to have a properly educated opinion. It's the same reason I don't disagree with scientists about whether viruses/virii are 'alive': they're the experts, not I.

    mattharvest on
  • QuothQuoth the Raven Miami, FL FOR REALRegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    So basically what you're saying is that the rape stuff in Watchmen is unrealistic? Or are you arguing that The Comedian is an irredeemable, morally bankrupt character because he is a rapist (among other things)? Or are you arguing that Silk Spectre is a mentally ill character for continuing to hook up with The Comedian after he raped her? Or just that their relationship was unhealthy as you state above? I have lost track of the original point apparently.

    But as to two of your points above, I certainly don't presume to know the mind of every single rapist, and so I don't find it unreasonable that there are varying motivations for rape that don't necessarily boil down to, as I said, mental derangement or lack of morals. You want me to name a case that doesn't fit that category, but I can't because I am not a mind reader and neither are you. Your contention is unprovable and so is mine, so it's a difference of opinion.

    Second, I find it somewhat absurd to posit that rape is a crime against society and that only society can determine who merits forgiveness and when. Rape is a crime against a particular person; the rapist is not raping society. It can be argued that other crimes--say, armed robbery--are crimes against society because they intrinsically weaken the social contract, but considering that (to my knowledge, I could be wrong) most rapists know their victims, I don't buy the argument that rape weakens the social contract. And certainly the victim may not be in a mental condition to make appropriate judgments on the situation, but I think forgiveness is absolutely an individual act and that any forgiveness on a societal level is window dressing at best.

    Quoth on
  • mattharvestmattharvest Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    (a) I think the rape scene is REALISTIC. For Chrissakes, my entire first post was that this was typical of the era being represented.
    (b) The Comedian is irredeemable because he's a rapist. As are all rapists. The best thing they can do is suicide.
    (c) Silk Spectre was mentally ill for continuing a relationship with her rapist.
    (d) Logically, a person who rapes either does so through mental derangement, or insufficient morals to keep them from raping. It's a tautology.
    (e) You misunderstand my point regarding society: my point was not at all that only society deems a rapist forgiven, but rather that the victim cannot do that either. You need to pay attention more closely to logical structure in a statement. My statement that the victim cannot absolve a rapist, because the offense is also against the society, does not entail that only society may absolve a rapist.
    (f) I am not a social contractarian, and was not making such a philosophical argument.
    (g) Stating that forgiveness "is absolutely an individual act" is just fiat, and fails logically. It completely ignores the simple empirical fact that it is an emergent property of large groups, and that clearly 'groups' may possess mental states distinct from the simple individual mental states of the composing individuals.

    mattharvest on
  • DouglasDangerDouglasDanger PennsylvaniaRegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    you guys are ruining the thread

    the comedian is a monstrous character. he's well-developed and everything, but he is still a monstrous character. he's not quite completely amoral, but he is pretty close.

    DouglasDanger on
    I play games on ps3 and ps4. My PSN is DouglasDanger.
  • The Lovely BastardThe Lovely Bastard Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    hey douglas you know who is cool?

    rorshach.

    rorshach is cool

    The Lovely Bastard on
  • QuothQuoth the Raven Miami, FL FOR REALRegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    (a) Okay.
    (b) I disagree, but I guess that makes me a softie...?
    (c) That depends on your definition of mentally ill. I give this a maybe, leaning toward probably.
    (d) I don't think that's a tautology at all, but I guess you could make the argument that possible motivations like anger and low self esteem and control needs are all mental derangements. I still think your definition is too narrow.
    (e) Okay. I disagree. I think only the victim is qualified to forgive. However, I agree that the victim cannot absolve, which is different in my opinion. To forgive is to pardon, while to absolve is to free from blame. I don't think rapists can be freed from blame, which implies that what they did was somehow excusable, but I think they can be pardoned for their crime, which to me means that the victim is able to overcome the resentment and anger they feel toward the rapist.
    (f) Okay.
    (g) The last part of my statement sums up my feelings on group mental states: group forgiveness is just window dressing. If a group forgives but its individual members don't, what is it worth? If a group forgives because its individual members forgive, then I would call that individual acts of forgiveness rather than groupthink.

    Quoth on
  • VirralVirral Registered User
    edited November 2008
    Dear lord, this is what happens when you throw fuel on a fire.

    Virral on
    2vlp7o9.jpg
  • VirralVirral Registered User
    edited November 2008
    hey douglas you know who is cool?

    rorshach.

    rorshach is cool

    Hey you're right, he is totally cool. Let's talk about that.

    Virral on
    2vlp7o9.jpg
  • LegbaLegba Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Who'd win in a fight - Rorschach or Batman?

    Legba on
  • QuothQuoth the Raven Miami, FL FOR REALRegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    how is that even a question

    Batman

    Quoth on
  • augustaugust where you come from is gone Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Legba wrote: »
    Who'd win in a fight - Rorschach or Batman?

    The Question.

    august on
    Pac Man's character is difficult to explain even to the Japanese -- he is an innocent character. He hasn't been educated to discern between good and evil. He acts more like a small child than a grown-up person. Think of him as a child learning in the course of his daily activities. If someone tells him guns are evil, he would be the type to rush out and eat guns. But he would most probably eat any gun, even the pistols of policemen who need them.
  • ForarForar #432 Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    august wrote: »
    Legba wrote: »
    Who'd win in a fight - Rorschach or Batman?

    The Question.

    Does Batman have time to prepare?

    Is Rorschach in a prison cell?

    How many dead prisoners are around?

    These are important Questions before we can begin to delve into the answers.

    Forar on
    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
  • Futt BuckerFutt Bucker Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Someone post that picture of DKR Batman slapping the shit out of Rorschach.

    Futt Bucker on
    My color is black to the blind
  • wyrlsswyrlss Registered User
    edited November 2008
    I thought Rorschah had superpowers now, cause he can jump OVER 9000 FEET as far as I can tell from the new trailer that I just urinated on.
    RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE

    wyrlss on
    K9Violator.png
  • augustaugust where you come from is gone Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    I think you watched it wrong.

    august on
    Pac Man's character is difficult to explain even to the Japanese -- he is an innocent character. He hasn't been educated to discern between good and evil. He acts more like a small child than a grown-up person. Think of him as a child learning in the course of his daily activities. If someone tells him guns are evil, he would be the type to rush out and eat guns. But he would most probably eat any gun, even the pistols of policemen who need them.
  • LegbaLegba Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Quoth wrote: »
    how is that even a question

    It has one of these at the end: '?' :D

    Legba on
  • QuothQuoth the Raven Miami, FL FOR REALRegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Legba wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    how is that even a question

    It has one of these at the end: '?' :D

    clever girl

    Quoth on
  • DJ EebsDJ Eebs Moderator mod
    edited November 2008
    wyrlss wrote: »
    I thought Rorschah had superpowers now, cause he can jump OVER 9000 FEET as far as I can tell from the new trailer that I just urinated on.
    RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE

    hey have you ever heard of "grappling hooks"

    DJ Eebs on
  • A Dabble Of TheloniusA Dabble Of Thelonius It has been a doozy of a dayRegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Don't start confusing the K9 Violater, Geebs.

    A Dabble Of Thelonius on
    vm8gvf5p7gqi.jpg
    Steam - Talon Valdez :Blizz - Talonious#1860 : Xbox Live & LoL - Talonious Monk @TaloniousMonk Hail Satan
  • ServoServo Registered User, ClubPA
    edited November 2008
    In this case, I'd put my money on Stockholm syndrome and let it ride.
    I wouldn't, since it's not a real thing, but hey I'm just the kind of guy who relies on experts when my own training isn't sufficient to have a properly educated opinion. It's the same reason I don't disagree with scientists about whether viruses/virii are 'alive': they're the experts, not I.

    well, really, just some guys don't think it's real. what they ]actually said is that there is not much in the way of real medical writing on the topic. there seem to be similarities between particular high-profile cases, but the research has just not effectively been done.

    THAT SAID

    in any case, i don't think the term stockholm syndrome would strictly apply to the comedian/spectre issue, as in my understanding it refers specifically to victims of a hostage or kidnap situation wherein the victim is forced into close proximity with an abuser for a prolonged period of time.

    what would probably be more applicable thought/concept is something like trauma-bonding, which is the phrase for what keeps, say, a woman going back to an abusive man or cults ankle deep in kool-aid drinkers.

    at any rate, unless one of you two (preferably both) can definitely state what your argument is about, it is now over and i declare myself the winner.



    edit- well, looking at the timestamps on those posts, i guess it was already pretty much over. i feel good about myself anyway.

    Servo on
    newsigs.jpg
  • VirralVirral Registered User
    edited November 2008
    Noone else ends an argument three days after everyone else gave up quite like you Servo :^:

    Virral on
    2vlp7o9.jpg
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Why does the Archie ship have a coffee maker in it? The Batmobile doesn't have a coffee maker in it - does that make Archie superior to the Batmobile?

    Also, when Veidt and his secretary faced assassination, didn't it look like the assassin's gun was pointing at Veidt? The next panel has the secretary being shot. How did that happen?

    emnmnme on
  • mattharvestmattharvest Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Why does the Archie ship have a coffee maker in it? The Batmobile doesn't have a coffee maker in it - does that make Archie superior to the Batmobile?

    Also, when Veidt and his secretary faced assassination, didn't it look like the assassin's gun was pointing at Veidt? The next panel has the secretary being shot. How did that happen?

    Veidt moved. The assassin was hired to kill him, and only kills the secretary by accident.

    mattharvest on
  • LasbrookLasbrook It takes a lot to make a stew When it comes to me and youRegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Man i just read through this thread (thanks to the new trailer i'm going a bit watchmen nuts) and ended up reading the ditched Hamm screenplay. I don't know how many of you have read this but..

    GOD IN HEAVEN WHAT IS THIS SHIT.

    Whatever Snyder does, judging from the trailers and even what ive heard about the ending it could never be worse than this. An opening scene with the watchmen in their prime, Veidt as leader in "Watchmen HQ", Comedian and Silk Spectre II working happily together and the Statue of Liberty blowing up? If that actually happened the Keene Act would have been much harsher than it was and probably would have led to prison sentences. Almost every scene/character was rendered completely useless.

    The Comedian- There's the opening scene that introduces everyone to the viewer, then his police investigation and funeral. None of the watchmen attend his funeral besides Manhattan and he only does so because he has to. The old-schoolers are never mentioned, nor his involvment in Vietnam, and no one seems to care at all. Rorschach's investigation is nuetered as Veidt himself does most of the telling of everyone that Blake's dead. Rorschach still does his thing but it's pretty much an afterthought.

    Manhattan- He doesn't matter. At all. He just exists to blame the world being wiped out on. Him giving everyone cancer? He gives it to the Silk Spectre not Janey Slater but we still have the freakout from the tv appearance and the reminiscing about Janey Slater even though she wasn't mentioned previously and has no other relevance to the plot. Its not even explained why he stopped being with her. The whole trip to Mars ends up with him and Laurie debating over whether he should cure her cancer.

    Rorschach- He's honestly still pretty badass. But without his inner monologue, his investigation pared down as it was and all you don't really get much of an understanding of Rorschach. Oh yeah and Moloch? He still does the fridge bit but there's no mention of super-villany and he apparently works for the govt and gets info on the missing people from them, not the Comedian. The whole prison section and his psych visits were cut for time as well. There's still the "you're trapped here with me" line but the story of when Rorschach became Rorschach is drastically changed. No "Kovacs closed his eyes, it was Rorschach who opened them." Funnily enough he gets busted out of prison not because Nite Owl thinks he's right but because he misses him.

    Nite Owl/Silk Spectre- Honestly Nite Owl made out the best out of all of them, no drastic changes to character or actions. The Silk Spectre however became entirely one-dimensional once we lost all the Comedian business with him nearly raping her mom and being her dad. Thanks to the romance plot line being cut down for time like everything else it just moves too fast for me, i'd almost think they'd been seeing each other before Manhattan left.

    Ozymandias and his Plan- Honestly, there was too much Veidt. You would have been seeing him pretty consistently throughout the movie which is not what you want for a masked villain. His plan is where you realize things have gone horribly gone wrong. No one ever figures it out. Veidt actually INVITES them out to Karnak claiming refuge from the mask killer but most everyone goes to avoid nuclear death. There's no foreshadowing, there's no payoff for the investigation, like i said they rescure Rorschach because they feel like it not because they think he might be right. On the way to Karnak Rorschach just deus ex machinas that Veidt's behind it all. But since they have no information the end is even MORE of veidt explaining his plan to save the world. Then things just get stupid. His plan was to hasten the nuclear destruction of the world for no real reason at all. His plan doesn't hinge on it so why he waits until then is beyond me. The big plan is to open a rift into space and time to assassinate Manhattan before his accident. Manhattan can't see this because things start getting messed up due to "time moving backwards" and they eventually make their grand appearance. Manhattan sees the time rift and gains an understanding of how time works, decides to go back in time then merge with himself as the IF field goes off leaving himself alive. Everyone is thusly transferred to New York in our timeline in 1985 about to get into a fight with the cops who have no idea who they are while the kid who read the black freighter recognizes them as the Watchmen since it's a comic here.

    I have a feeling one important bit was cut from the end of this script.
    Fade to Black; words slowly appear on the screen:
    end-298.jpg

    Lasbrook on
  • DouglasDangerDouglasDanger PennsylvaniaRegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Yeah, that's terrible. Thank goodness they didn't use that screen play.

    DouglasDanger on
    I play games on ps3 and ps4. My PSN is DouglasDanger.
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Yeah, that's terrible. Thank goodness they didn't use that screen play.

    Moore would be spinning in his grave if that script were used.

    ...I'm assuming he would die during the first readthrough, of course.

    emnmnme on
  • LasbrookLasbrook It takes a lot to make a stew When it comes to me and youRegistered User regular
    edited November 2008
    Actually all that already happened back in '89 when that script was written, but before his death he programmed a robot Alan Moore designed to hate everything and claim he's a shaman.

    Lasbrook on
Sign In or Register to comment.