(SPOILERS) Watchmen is the greatest book ever written

1356719

Posts

  • PantheraOncaPantheraOnca Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    if anything, public opinion at the time certainly didn't praise homosexuality, so it could be a way to ruin his image publicly, and use the threat of that as a weapon if necessary.

    PantheraOnca on
  • DouglasDangerDouglasDanger PennsylvaniaRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    During the day, he walks around New York as a vagrant with a sign reading "The end is nigh."

    DouglasDanger on
    I play games on ps3 and ps4. My PSN is DouglasDanger.
  • KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    I get the feeling Rorschach is uncomfortable about any kind of sexuality - he doesn't like the spray-painted kissing silhouettes, he didn't like working with women's clothing at the job he got the mask material from.

    KalTorak on
  • The One Dark KnightThe One Dark Knight Registered User
    edited March 2008
    Man, my favorite, favorite part of this book is where you get led into the whole 'oh, now the villian is explaining his plan and the heroes put a stop to it' part.

    And then Veidt fucks your shit up by saying "I did it thirty four minutes ago"


    Classic.

    The One Dark Knight on
    [END]
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus premium Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    KalTorak wrote: »
    I get the feeling Rorschach is uncomfortable about any kind of sexuality - he doesn't like the spray-painted kissing silhouettes, he didn't like working with women's clothing at the job he got the mask material from.

    Yeah, his childhood experiences definitely left him with a fucked-up view of sexuality. He talks about how no one is selling "American love" in one of the journal snippets, and while he doesn't elaborate on what that is, I've got a feeling he thinks it's the wholesome sort of childhood sweetheart kind of thing that involves heavy holding hands and kisses on cheeks.

    DarkPrimus on
    dt3GeqU.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
  • NephrenKaNephrenKa Registered User
    edited March 2008
    I have to agree that Watchmen is the greatest comic book ever written. Alan Moore is probably the most cerebral and complex of all comic book writers.

    As for the Rorschach debate, I was reading through all the comments about his views on homosexuality, and I remembered something. When Nite Owl and Rorschach shake hands, it is the only time that Rorschach has any kind of contact with another person in the book that doesn't immediately end up with someone getting the snot beaten out of them. When this happens, Rorschach apparently holds the handshake for a bit longer than is comfortable for Nite Owl. Now I'm not saying this implies anything about his sexuality, but it is important because it's the only friendly contact for Rorschach that we see.

    NephrenKa on
  • JebuJebu Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Another interesting thing about Rorschach is that when he was a kid, he admired Truman for dropping the A-bomb on Japan because he thought it saved millions of lives. Yet he has a strong objection to Veidt doing something very similar, albeit on a grander scale.

    As far as the homophobic side of his character, I think it's just part of his overall intolerance of what he views as deviant behavior. He leans towards a fascist view of the world that needs to pursue purity, just as Veidt leans towards a more socialist view that needs to pursue unity.

    Jebu on
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus premium Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Jebu wrote: »
    Another interesting thing about Rorschach is that when he was a kid, he admired Truman for dropping the A-bomb on Japan because he thought it saved millions of lives. Yet he has a strong objection to Veidt doing something very similar, albeit on a grander scale.

    But Japan was the enemy. Vedit attacked his own country.

    DarkPrimus on
    dt3GeqU.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
  • NephrenKaNephrenKa Registered User
    edited March 2008
    Jebu wrote: »
    Another interesting thing about Rorschach is that when he was a kid, he admired Truman for dropping the A-bomb on Japan because he thought it saved millions of lives. Yet he has a strong objection to Veidt doing something very similar, albeit on a grander scale.

    You know, I never thought of that. I think that it has less to do with the act itself than the truth of the act. After all, the USA admitted why it was dropping the Bomb before and after the act. There was never any real deception. Veidt isn't telling people that it was him, or to what end. Of course, that would ruin the entire operation, but Rorschach doesn't see that. He sees only the need for the truth to be revealed.

    NephrenKa on
  • Gabriel_PittGabriel_Pitt (effective against the Irish) Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Jebu wrote: »
    Another interesting thing about Rorschach is that when he was a kid, he admired Truman for dropping the A-bomb on Japan because he thought it saved millions of lives. Yet he has a strong objection to Veidt doing something very similar, albeit on a grander scale.

    But Japan was the enemy. Vedit attacked his own country.
    Yes, but when your own country is half the equation leading to nuclear confrontation, you can't really afford to be too sentimental.

    Gabriel_Pitt on
  • TubeTube Administrator, ClubPA admin
    edited March 2008
    I find it pretty hard to accept some people's view that Veidt did the right thing.

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

  • augustaugust where you come from is gone Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Moore bent over backwards to make mankind's inevitable apocalyptic demise obvious.

    If, like Rorschach, you prefer the death of the species over a future built on a lie, then I can see how you would feel that way. However, I think the ending was very definitely morally ambiguous, like just about everything else Moore has ever written.

    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.
  • OrogogusOrogogus San DiegoRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    I find it pretty hard to accept some people's view that Veidt did the right thing.
    Well, the story pretty clearly implies that he didn't. It's suggested in four or five different ways that it falls apart after the comic ends. But if you can't sympathize with his view, or believe that nuclear war was an inevitability in the Watchmen world, then I don't see how the story really did anything for you.

    Also, two worst parts of the comic:
    1. Nite Owl guessing Veidt's password
    2. Veidt catching the damn bullet

    Something I didn't understand: Why couldn't the US expect Dr. Manhattan to intercept 100% of the incoming missile in a nuclear war scenario? Thematically, it would have been to prevent the US from winning the Cold War right out, but he was practically omnipotent in the story -- indestructible, transmuter, can teleport, can teleport other things, can make more of himself. It's hard to imagine him being anything less than a perfect missile shield.

    Orogogus on
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Accepting Veidt's plan as necessary means accepting that it's man's nature to self-destruct. If man really is such a creature, then we aren't worth saving, nor can we be saved without robbing us of our freedom or humanity.

    Robos A Go Go on
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Orogogus wrote: »
    I find it pretty hard to accept some people's view that Veidt did the right thing.
    Well, the story pretty clearly implies that he didn't. It's suggested in four or five different ways that it falls apart after the comic ends. But if you can't sympathize with his view, or believe that nuclear war was an inevitability in the Watchmen world, then I don't see how the story really did anything for you.

    Also, two worst parts of the comic:
    1. Nite Owl guessing Veidt's password
    2. Veidt catching the damn bullet

    Something I didn't understand: Why couldn't the US expect Dr. Manhattan to intercept 100% of the incoming missile in a nuclear war scenario? Thematically, it would have been to prevent the US from winning the Cold War right out, but he was practically omnipotent in the story -- indestructible, transmuter, can teleport, can teleport other things, can make more of himself. It's hard to imagine him being anything less than a perfect missile shield.

    I thought Veidt wanted an audience, if only to assure him that he was doing the right thing. Surely that would mean choosing an easy to guess password.

    Robos A Go Go on
  • Gabriel_PittGabriel_Pitt (effective against the Irish) Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    I find it pretty hard to accept some people's view that Veidt did the right thing.
    Destroy New York to advert nuclear annihilation.

    I really can't see in any way in which this is wrong. Killing 2 million to save 4 billion is a pretty easy choice to make.

    Of course on the whole, it's cold blooded murder on an unimaginable scale, but sometimes, when saving the world, you gotta break a few eggs. And of course, actually having the determination and strength to do it is another matte entirely.

    Gabriel_Pitt on
  • OrogogusOrogogus San DiegoRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Orogogus wrote: »
    I find it pretty hard to accept some people's view that Veidt did the right thing.
    Well, the story pretty clearly implies that he didn't. It's suggested in four or five different ways that it falls apart after the comic ends. But if you can't sympathize with his view, or believe that nuclear war was an inevitability in the Watchmen world, then I don't see how the story really did anything for you.

    Also, two worst parts of the comic:
    1. Nite Owl guessing Veidt's password
    2. Veidt catching the damn bullet

    Something I didn't understand: Why couldn't the US expect Dr. Manhattan to intercept 100% of the incoming missile in a nuclear war scenario? Thematically, it would have been to prevent the US from winning the Cold War right out, but he was practically omnipotent in the story -- indestructible, transmuter, can teleport, can teleport other things, can make more of himself. It's hard to imagine him being anything less than a perfect missile shield.

    I thought Veidt wanted an audience, if only to assure him that he was doing the right thing. Surely that would mean choosing an easy to guess password.

    But he didn't even guess right the first time, and then the computer's all, "Uh, almost there... three more characters?" I think even in 198whatever this would have been a pretty unbelievable login system. It would have been a lot better if he had simply guessed it right the first time.

    Orogogus on
  • PantheraOncaPantheraOnca Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    I find it pretty hard to accept some people's view that Veidt did the right thing.
    Destroy New York to advert nuclear annihilation.

    I really can't see in any way in which this is wrong. Killing 2 million to save 4 billion is a pretty easy choice to make.

    Of course on the whole, it's cold blooded murder on an unimaginable scale, but sometimes, when saving the world, you gotta break a few eggs. And of course, actually having the determination and strength to do it is another matte entirely.

    you are evil and need to never be given, or have, any kind of power over anyone ever.

    just thought you should know that.

    PantheraOnca on
  • augustaugust where you come from is gone Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Accepting Veidt's plan as necessary means accepting that it's man's nature to self-destruct. If man really is such a creature, then we aren't worth saving, nor can we be saved without robbing us of our freedom or humanity.

    Veidt is a human. And no more a murderer, liar and manipulator than some of the men who brought us to the brink of nuclear war.

    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.
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    august wrote: »
    Accepting Veidt's plan as necessary means accepting that it's man's nature to self-destruct. If man really is such a creature, then we aren't worth saving, nor can we be saved without robbing us of our freedom or humanity.

    Veidt is a human. And no more a murderer, liar and manipulator than some of the men who brought us to the brink of nuclear war.
    Is there a conflict between your post and mine? I don't see one.

    Robos A Go Go on
  • CyberJackalCyberJackal Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    It's difficult to accept the "inevitability" of nuclear war when real life has shown it's not inevitable at all.

    CyberJackal on
  • NephrenKaNephrenKa Registered User
    edited March 2008
    I'm one of the few people who agree that Veidt, in the end, was justified for what he did. In the larger scheme of things, the survival of the human species is paramount, which is what he believed. To save us all from Mutually Assured Destruction, something that both the USA and USSR had come to accept, he had to engineer a lie that would unite us, and it had to be big enough that it couldn't be refuted. Because Moore essentially casts human nature in a dark light, the salvation of our species would of course be a lie, rather than the truth, which I would've preferred.

    So he comes up with this alien, devises a method by which it will cause enough destruction and death to make even nuclear weapons seem inconsequential, and uses it as a tool to fool us all into working together. The same theme is explored in Orson Scott Card's Ender side stories, where the the lack of the Bugger threat breaks up the global government and we go straight back to warring and bickering again. I mean, historically, big threats have always provoked unity, so Veidt tried to copy that by creating an imaginary threat so big that the whole human species has to unite for survival. In the end, he did a good thing, assuring our continued existence, but he had to murder millions of people to get there. To me, his methods were unacceptable, but I cannot argue with the end result. And I'm sure that he lived in guilt for the rest of his days, always wondering if the house of cards the human species had become would tumble down at any moment if his lie was exposed. Hence, Rorschach's diary, which could be the catalyst for the destruction of the unity, if anyone believes it. But that part is for the reader to decide on. Either way, Moore did a fantastic job of making people think, and all of his characters are incredibly well-developed. I mean, I just wrote this entire post based off the beliefs of a fictional character and attempting to justify said work of fiction's viewpoint.

    NephrenKa on
  • JebuJebu Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    I find it pretty hard to accept some people's view that Veidt did the right thing.
    Destroy New York to advert nuclear annihilation.

    I really can't see in any way in which this is wrong. Killing 2 million to save 4 billion is a pretty easy choice to make.

    Of course on the whole, it's cold blooded murder on an unimaginable scale, but sometimes, when saving the world, you gotta break a few eggs. And of course, actually having the determination and strength to do it is another matte entirely.

    you are evil and need to never be given, or have, any kind of power over anyone ever.

    just thought you should know that.

    This is the whole crux of the book: Do you believe humanity is worth saving at any cost, or are there principles that humans should have that are more important than humanity's survival?

    Part of why I love this book so much is that my reading of it changes over time. The first time I read it, in middle school, I loved Rorschach and identified with his uncompromising and overall badass persona. When I read it a few years later, I empathized with Veidt more, and thought that compromises did have to be made for a greater good. A few years later I appreciated Manhattan's wide angle lens view more, with a perspective beyond humanity and even beyond life. Recently I read it and felt a lot more sympathy for the Comedian, and understood his bleak world view more than I used to, despite him being a complete sociopath. I'm sure as I grow older Nite Owl's despairing yet struggling viewpoint will appeal to me more.

    The book never stops being rewarding, and I can't say that about many works of literature, let alone comic books.

    Jebu on
  • jkylefultonjkylefulton Squid...or Kid? NNID - majpellRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    It's difficult to accept the "inevitability" of nuclear war when real life has shown it's not inevitable at all.

    I think it's safe to say that, in the Watchmen reality, it was an inevitability. The US had superpowered operatives, the Russians did not.

    jkylefulton on
    tOkYVT2.jpg
  • KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Orogogus wrote: »
    Something I didn't understand: Why couldn't the US expect Dr. Manhattan to intercept 100% of the incoming missile in a nuclear war scenario? Thematically, it would have been to prevent the US from winning the Cold War right out, but he was practically omnipotent in the story -- indestructible, transmuter, can teleport, can teleport other things, can make more of himself. It's hard to imagine him being anything less than a perfect missile shield.

    While he was around, they could. Manhattan was basically the US's entire nuclear strategy while he was working with the military, and it made the whole idea of nuclear war a pretty one-sided affair (kindof like the reverse of what happens in Red Son). When he up and left they were caught with their pants down, though.

    KalTorak on
  • OrogogusOrogogus San DiegoRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Orogogus wrote: »
    Something I didn't understand: Why couldn't the US expect Dr. Manhattan to intercept 100% of the incoming missile in a nuclear war scenario? Thematically, it would have been to prevent the US from winning the Cold War right out, but he was practically omnipotent in the story -- indestructible, transmuter, can teleport, can teleport other things, can make more of himself. It's hard to imagine him being anything less than a perfect missile shield.

    While he was around, they could. Manhattan was basically the US's entire nuclear strategy while he was working with the military, and it made the whole idea of nuclear war a pretty one-sided affair (kindof like the reverse of what happens in Red Son). When he up and left they were caught with their pants down, though.

    No, they had a number attached to the percentage of incoming nuclear missiles he could intercept, and it wasn't 100. This was, presumably, why Nixon (or whoever the president was by 1985, I forget) didn't just send him in to disarm Russia and end the Cold War.

    Orogogus on
  • TubeTube Administrator, ClubPA admin
    edited March 2008
    whose fault was it that dr manhattan left again?

    oh right

    Veidt

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

  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    I should read this again, it's been a little while.

    I think everyone on their first reading, identifies a lot with Rorsharch (fuck you spelling), as he is the stubborn, straight ahead persona that everyone's used to, and expects to see in comics. He is uncompromising in a world of compromise. This is probably why he is seen as the biggest crazy, and the most dangerous.

    I remember being a little disappointed that you aren't given more insight into Veidt's character until the very end, I'm curious to know more about him other than just his role as 'villain', more about the trail that led him there.

    I also think that the character that most people like initially is Nite-Owl, as he is probably the most flawed and human. He's the most unaware of what's going on around him, and the least able to cope with the changes. This is ultimately what makes him the most sympathetic person though. I think at the end, the reason why Manhattan doesn't do anything to Veidt is that after seeing Nite-Owl and Silk Spectre after making love, he is reassured that humanity will be able to persevere and carry on, even after this horrible tragedy.

    Or maybe not. Shit, that rambled on longer than I meant to.

    SageinaRage on
  • OrogogusOrogogus San DiegoRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Orogogus wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Orogogus wrote: »
    Something I didn't understand: Why couldn't the US expect Dr. Manhattan to intercept 100% of the incoming missile in a nuclear war scenario? Thematically, it would have been to prevent the US from winning the Cold War right out, but he was practically omnipotent in the story -- indestructible, transmuter, can teleport, can teleport other things, can make more of himself. It's hard to imagine him being anything less than a perfect missile shield.

    While he was around, they could. Manhattan was basically the US's entire nuclear strategy while he was working with the military, and it made the whole idea of nuclear war a pretty one-sided affair (kindof like the reverse of what happens in Red Son). When he up and left they were caught with their pants down, though.

    No, they had a number attached to the percentage of incoming nuclear missiles he could intercept, and it wasn't 100. This was, presumably, why Nixon (or whoever the president was by 1985, I forget) didn't just send him in to disarm Russia and end the Cold War.

    For the record, this is in the text section at the end of the fourth chapter, where Dr. Osterman's old boss says that theoretical demonstrations show that Dr. Manhattan would be able to deflect or disarm at least 60% of the missiles shot at America in the event of a nuclear attack. The same section states that Dr. Manhattan wouldn't be able to stop all the missiles, and it's never really made clear why not while there's a lot to suggest that, yes he could.

    Orogogus on
  • ServoServo Registered User, ClubPA
    edited March 2008
    i would imagine that it's just as time passed since then, he's gotten more comfortable and proficient with this powers. or maybe he was willfully not performing to his full ability.

    Servo on
    newsigs.jpg
  • augustaugust where you come from is gone Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Orogogus wrote: »
    Orogogus wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Orogogus wrote: »
    Something I didn't understand: Why couldn't the US expect Dr. Manhattan to intercept 100% of the incoming missile in a nuclear war scenario? Thematically, it would have been to prevent the US from winning the Cold War right out, but he was practically omnipotent in the story -- indestructible, transmuter, can teleport, can teleport other things, can make more of himself. It's hard to imagine him being anything less than a perfect missile shield.

    While he was around, they could. Manhattan was basically the US's entire nuclear strategy while he was working with the military, and it made the whole idea of nuclear war a pretty one-sided affair (kindof like the reverse of what happens in Red Son). When he up and left they were caught with their pants down, though.

    No, they had a number attached to the percentage of incoming nuclear missiles he could intercept, and it wasn't 100. This was, presumably, why Nixon (or whoever the president was by 1985, I forget) didn't just send him in to disarm Russia and end the Cold War.

    For the record, this is in the text section at the end of the fourth chapter, where Dr. Osterman's old boss says that theoretical demonstrations show that Dr. Manhattan would be able to deflect or disarm at least 60% of the missiles shot at America in the event of a nuclear attack. The same section states that Dr. Manhattan wouldn't be able to stop all the missiles, and it's never really made clear why not while there's a lot to suggest that, yes he could.

    Like what, exactly?

    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.
  • DouglasDangerDouglasDanger PennsylvaniaRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Seriously, why would you think that, even though the only statistic says something way less than 100%?

    Why are we even arguing about something as irrelevant as this any way?

    DouglasDanger on
    I play games on ps3 and ps4. My PSN is DouglasDanger.
  • PantheraOncaPantheraOnca Registered User regular
    edited March 2008

    Why are we even arguing about something as irrelevant as this any way?

    welcome to the internet? specifically, a discussion board.

    PantheraOnca on
  • augustaugust where you come from is gone Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Seriously, why would you think that, even though the only statistic says something way less than 100%?

    Why are we even arguing about something as irrelevant as this any way?

    Because if Dr. Manhattan were a proof against Mutually Assured Destruction, then Veidt was creating his own apocalypse by scaring him off to Mars.

    I don't have my copy with me, but I'm pretty sure that it was made clear that was was inevitable anyway, and that sending Manhattan off only uped the timetable.

    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.
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    august wrote: »
    Orogogus wrote: »
    Orogogus wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Orogogus wrote: »
    Something I didn't understand: Why couldn't the US expect Dr. Manhattan to intercept 100% of the incoming missile in a nuclear war scenario? Thematically, it would have been to prevent the US from winning the Cold War right out, but he was practically omnipotent in the story -- indestructible, transmuter, can teleport, can teleport other things, can make more of himself. It's hard to imagine him being anything less than a perfect missile shield.

    While he was around, they could. Manhattan was basically the US's entire nuclear strategy while he was working with the military, and it made the whole idea of nuclear war a pretty one-sided affair (kindof like the reverse of what happens in Red Son). When he up and left they were caught with their pants down, though.

    No, they had a number attached to the percentage of incoming nuclear missiles he could intercept, and it wasn't 100. This was, presumably, why Nixon (or whoever the president was by 1985, I forget) didn't just send him in to disarm Russia and end the Cold War.

    For the record, this is in the text section at the end of the fourth chapter, where Dr. Osterman's old boss says that theoretical demonstrations show that Dr. Manhattan would be able to deflect or disarm at least 60% of the missiles shot at America in the event of a nuclear attack. The same section states that Dr. Manhattan wouldn't be able to stop all the missiles, and it's never really made clear why not while there's a lot to suggest that, yes he could.

    Like what, exactly?
    Teleporting to Mars and building a Castle with his brain?

    Fencingsax on
    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
  • augustaugust where you come from is gone Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    He has powers, but he's not totally omniscient and omnipotent.

    If the scientist says that he could only stop a percentage, then I'm pretty sure we were supposed to understand that to be true. Otherwise the Dr. would have simply neutered the USSR years ago.

    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.
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    august wrote: »
    He has powers, but he's not totally omniscient and omnipotent.

    If the scientist says that he could only stop a percentage, then I'm pretty sure we were supposed to understand that to be true. Otherwise the Dr. would have simply neutered the USSR years ago.

    I was under the impression that they weren't aware of the full extent of his powers.

    Robos A Go Go on
  • augustaugust where you come from is gone Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    august wrote: »
    He has powers, but he's not totally omniscient and omnipotent.

    If the scientist says that he could only stop a percentage, then I'm pretty sure we were supposed to understand that to be true. Otherwise the Dr. would have simply neutered the USSR years ago.

    I was under the impression that they weren't aware of the full extent of his powers.

    No one does. However, it's their best guess. Obviously he has some kind of limits, or there wouldn't be a Cold War.

    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.
  • PantheraOncaPantheraOnca Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    august wrote: »
    august wrote: »
    He has powers, but he's not totally omniscient and omnipotent.

    If the scientist says that he could only stop a percentage, then I'm pretty sure we were supposed to understand that to be true. Otherwise the Dr. would have simply neutered the USSR years ago.

    I was under the impression that they weren't aware of the full extent of his powers.

    No one does. However, it's their best guess. Obviously he has some kind of limits, or there wouldn't be a Cold War.

    he seems to be limitted by the fact that some things will happen while others wont.

    what i mean to say is i dont think he has free will anymore, and therefore cannot CHOOSE to do anything.

    part of the whole existing in all times at the same time thing.

    its been a while since i've read it, but i remember feeling sad for dr. manhattan because he didnt seem to be able to choose.

    PantheraOnca on
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    august wrote: »
    august wrote: »
    He has powers, but he's not totally omniscient and omnipotent.

    If the scientist says that he could only stop a percentage, then I'm pretty sure we were supposed to understand that to be true. Otherwise the Dr. would have simply neutered the USSR years ago.

    I was under the impression that they weren't aware of the full extent of his powers.

    No one does. However, it's their best guess. Obviously he has some kind of limits, or there wouldn't be a Cold War.
    It seemed to me that all that limited him was his apathy and fatalist bullshit.

    Fencingsax on
    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.