(SPOILERS) Watchmen is the greatest book ever written

1246719

Posts

  • PantheraOncaPantheraOnca Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    It seemed to me that all that limited him was his apathy and fatalist bullshit.

    thats what i was getting at, but with a sympathetic view of him.

    PantheraOnca on
  • augustaugust where you come from is gone Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    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.

    It dosen't really matter if his limits are physical or psychological. Either way, the man (?) wasn't proof against nuclear Armageddon.

    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.
  • NephrenKaNephrenKa Registered User
    edited March 2008
    The way I remember it being is simply that the events of reality are set. Dr. Manhattan can see all of it, and is living it all in parallel, therefore he knows the future, but he cannot act on it. No matter what he does, which is usually nothing, the result will be the same. Even with all his godlike power, he can't fight what's set. I think that's what Moore was trying to tell us, and this fact is what eventually made Manhattan so alien to us. We can't comprehend his mindset, which at this point only vaguely resembled that of a human. I guess his limits are only what he can affect and what he can't affect, really. If all of time is preordained, what can he do, even with all that power?

    NephrenKa on
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    You make it sound like he's that time traveler who goes back in time to save Kennedy only to discover that he's the one who kills him. That's really not the case. He's not trapped at all. He can make choices.

    The only limitation, really, is the fact that he cannot choose to do the things he does not choose to do. We all have that limitation. God, presumably, has that limitation. Essentially, it just means you cannot create paradoxes.

    Robos A Go Go on
  • AngryAngry The glory I had witnessed was just a sleight of handRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    no he really doesn't make him sound like that.

    Angry on
  • DouglasDangerDouglasDanger PennsylvaniaRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    He did try to gangbang his girl all by myself. I just went yeahbutwha when I got to that my first time

    DouglasDanger on
    I play games on ps3 and ps4. My PSN is DouglasDanger.
  • PantheraOncaPantheraOnca Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    well, i got the impression that he experiences all time simultaneously.

    this is completely alien to human understanding.

    also, to me, it seemed like everything that he was experiencing, was almost happening to someone else to him. sort of like he was watching himself on tv, but with another tv for every instant in time.

    time is a bitch.

    PantheraOnca on
  • augustaugust where you come from is gone Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Multiple times, both in dialog and interior monologue, Manhattan describes himself as standing outside time, that he already know what will happen and what he will do. In fact, to him he has already done everything up until the tachyon field. The question is whether a being in such a position can be said to have free will.

    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
    Angry wrote: »
    no he really doesn't make him sound like that.
    The way I remember it being is simply that the events of reality are set. Dr. Manhattan can see all of it, and is living it all in parallel, therefore he knows the future, but he cannot act on it. No matter what he does, which is usually nothing, the result will be the same.

    "No matter what he does," suggests that Dr. Manhattan could or would attempt to change the course of time.

    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.

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

    just thought you should know that.
    The loss of a billion lives is a perfectly acceptable exchange to save a billion and one.
    whose fault was it that dr manhattan left again?

    oh right

    Veidt
    Because having Manhattan around, the U.S was willing to take 'acceptable' loses in case of a nuclear exchange. Without Manhattan, the US leadership was shitting its pants because it no longer had the big, blue, missile shield to keep those loses 'acceptable.'

    Gabriel_Pitt on
  • JebuJebu Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    whose fault was it that dr manhattan left again?

    oh right

    Veidt
    Because having Manhattan around, the U.S was willing to take 'acceptable' loses in case of a nuclear exchange. Without Manhattan, the US leadership was shitting its pants because it no longer had the big, blue, missile shield to keep those loses 'acceptable.'

    Well, Veidt's whole reasoning for getting rid of Manhattan was him, "being too powerful and unpredictable to fit my plans, needed removing."

    The whole tachyon stuff messed with Manhattan's ability to see what would happen in the future, and so for the first time he was 'surprised' by what happened and had some quasi-free will to decide what to do after Veidt's grand hoax. That interrupted his ability to see outside time, and I think pushed him towards accepting a role as something beyond human, more of a god and creator of life.

    Jebu on
  • PotUPotU __BANNED USERS
    edited March 2008
    Is this here about the question if it's morally acceptable to kill a person to save the lives of others?

    And I love Watchmen. I got it last year from a forumer and now I want to read it again.

    PotU on
    2mong9u.jpg
  • DouglasDangerDouglasDanger PennsylvaniaRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    I wish I had enough extra money to justify buying Absolute Watchmen, but I don't.

    DouglasDanger on
    I play games on ps3 and ps4. My PSN is DouglasDanger.
  • jkylefultonjkylefulton Squid...or Kid? NNID - majpellRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    If it's anything like the original Graphitti HC, I'd highly recommend it. The supplemental material in the back of the book really fleshes out the world Moore/Gibbons envisioned.

    jkylefulton on
    tOkYVT2.jpg
  • OrogogusOrogogus San DiegoRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    august wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    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.

    It dosen't really matter if his limits are physical or psychological. Either way, the man (?) wasn't proof against nuclear Armageddon.
    What I was getting at was that the story really should have shown Dr. Manhattan hitting up against some kind of physical limits, at least early on in his career, if we were supposed to understand that he wasn't proof against nuclear war. He certainly seemed pretty close to omnipotent -- teleporting to Mars, copying himself so that he could have sex while doing quantum research, teleporting dozens of rioters "home" simultaneously, supposedly being able to eradicate huge tracts of land. Saying, "Oh, but he can't stop nuclear war" seemed like a giant plot shortcut to me -- they could have just added "or else we wouldn't have a story."

    Orogogus on
  • VorusVorus Registered User
    edited March 2008
    Most people here have probably already seen this, but just in case you haven't, this is a really cool site for spotting all the little things you may have missed reading Watchmen through
    http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~sjblatt/watchmen/o.html#1

    Vorus on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • 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.

    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.

    I don't accept anything as inevitable.

    CyberJackal on
  • augustaugust where you come from is gone 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.

    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.

    I don't accept anything as inevitable.

    Wow, that's like deep dude.

    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.
  • Brian888Brian888 Registered User
    edited March 2008
    Aleph wrote: »
    But he thought The Comedian was a genuine hero, he was also a homophobe, his political preference is shady at best, and most important of all; he was a genuine murderin' sociopath.


    And quite probably a raving misogynist, which makes sense considering his history with his mother. I find it very hard to glorify Rorshach. This doesn't mean that I necessarily think Ozymandias is the cat's meow, either. I don't think there ARE any "heroes" in Watchmen, which to me is one of the big points of the whole work.

    Brian888 on
  • EchoEcho Moderator mod
    edited March 2008
    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.

    This right here.

    I see him as very similar to Paul Atreides -- he can see the future and the path he will take, but he can't deviate from it. He knows what will happen, but he can't act in any way to change it. Since he exists at all times everything, in a way, has already happened to him. If he changes anything his future selves wouldn't exist and thus couldn't remember what happened and oh god my head
    And then Veidt fucks your shit up by saying "I did it thirty four minutes ago"

    Someone on the forums has a sig with Veidt, the Adidas logo and "Just did it". Makes me smile every time I see it. :P

    Echo on
    Echo wrote: »
    Let they who have not posted about their balls in the wrong thread cast the first stone.
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Actually, if Doc Manhattan exists, then nobody has free will.

    But to be honest, I don't think anyone has free will, even without omniscient blue guys floating around.

    Robos A Go Go on
  • Bob The MonkeyBob The Monkey Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    The loss of a billion lives is a perfectly acceptable exchange to save a billion and one.

    I, uh

    I assume you know you're an idiot.

    Because after typing that, how could you not?

    Bob The Monkey on
  • EchoEcho Moderator mod
    edited March 2008
    The loss of a billion lives is a perfectly acceptable exchange to save a billion and one.

    I, uh

    I assume you know you're an idiot.

    Because after typing that, how could you not?

    Veidt was convinced that two billion and one people would die. How many people would you sacrifice to prevent two billion and one deaths if you had the choice, and all of them would die if you didn't make the choice?

    Echo on
    Echo wrote: »
    Let they who have not posted about their balls in the wrong thread cast the first stone.
  • PantheraOncaPantheraOnca Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Echo wrote: »
    The loss of a billion lives is a perfectly acceptable exchange to save a billion and one.

    I, uh

    I assume you know you're an idiot.

    Because after typing that, how could you not?

    Veidt was convinced that two billion and one people would die. How many people would you sacrifice to prevent two billion and one deaths if you had the choice, and all of them would die if you didn't make the choice?

    the correct answer is you find another choice or die trying.

    if you're going to give human life a mathematical value, you then have to calculate how the people that will live will benefit humanity vs. those that don't. you could take this to include their prodgeny, but i won't.

    edit: dye !=die.

    PantheraOnca on
  • OrogogusOrogogus San DiegoRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    It bugs me that "there's always a better way" is always the right answer in comics, and that trying to save both people about to go down the falls never means you lose them both. No such thing as hard choices or brutal consequences, yay.

    Orogogus on
  • augustaugust where you come from is gone Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Echo wrote: »
    The loss of a billion lives is a perfectly acceptable exchange to save a billion and one.

    I, uh

    I assume you know you're an idiot.

    Because after typing that, how could you not?

    Veidt was convinced that two billion and one people would die. How many people would you sacrifice to prevent two billion and one deaths if you had the choice, and all of them would die if you didn't make the choice?

    the correct answer is you find another choice or die trying.

    if you're going to give human life a mathematical value, you then have to calculate how the people that will live will benefit humanity vs. those that don't. you could take this to include their prodgeny, but i won't.

    edit: dye !=die.

    Well.... that certainly is a position that someone with no responsibility over human lives has the luxury to take.

    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.
  • ScooterScooter Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    The one thing that gets me is the world's smartest man, instead of spending 10 years creating a giant psychic alien from scratch that would kill millions of people, could've probably figured out in 6 months how to just get the two sides to talk things out, or invented his own missle defense system, or led a coup and overthrown the USSR, or any one of a thousand more practical and safer ways to save the world.

    Of course it would mean no story, but it makes it a lot harder to take his side.

    Scooter on
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    If you accept that he's the world's smartest man, then you must accept that he considered these other possibilities and found his own mass murder hoax to be preferable, for whatever reason.

    Robos A Go Go on
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus premium Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Because he could have come up with the perfect solution, but that would have hinged on those in charge of the the countries agreeing to the terms of the solution.

    DarkPrimus on
    dt3GeqU.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
  • jkylefultonjkylefulton Squid...or Kid? NNID - majpellRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    An alien invasion allows all sides to withdraw while saving face. Moore outlines why the Watchmen-reality USSR will never, ever, ever agree to disarm / surrender in one of the supplemental pieces at the end of the issue (maybe the third or fourth issue?).

    jkylefulton on
    tOkYVT2.jpg
  • WyndhamPriceWyndhamPrice Registered User
    edited March 2008
    Yeah, Veidt was most likely was going for the most efficient, fool-proof option, not the most ethical.

    WyndhamPrice on
    WyndhamPrice.png
  • ScooterScooter Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Although Nixon was already sitting in the bunker with his hand on the football (I thought it odd they shaped it like an actual football), could've easily gone like

    Military Dude: OMG, we lost contact with New York! Reports say there was a flash and there's bodies everywhere!
    Nixon: Oh shits! *nuke nuke nuke*

    Scooter on
  • augustaugust where you come from is gone Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Yeah, I was thinking of that.

    But you know hey it's a book.

    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.
  • jkylefultonjkylefulton Squid...or Kid? NNID - majpellRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Presumably, they would have access to all sorts of telemetry and shit in the Cheyenne Mountain setup Nixon had going. Telemetry that would show no missles have been launched.

    Stupid question, but did they have suitcase nukes in the 1980s? I was born in 1979, so I'm not really sure.

    jkylefulton on
    tOkYVT2.jpg
  • EchoEcho Moderator mod
    edited March 2008
    Wikipedia to the rescue!
    There has been no official information released on the existence of true suitcase or briefcase-sized nuclear weapons in either the US or Russian arsenals. However, the Washington, DC based intelligence-firm Center For Defense Information (CDI) states that the US government produced a class of nuclear devices in the late 1970s which were small enough to fit into an actual suitcase or briefcase. CDI likewise claims that a detailed training replica — with dummy explosives and no fissionable material — was routinely concealed inside a briefcase and hand-carried on domestic airline flights in the early 1980s.

    Echo on
    Echo wrote: »
    Let they who have not posted about their balls in the wrong thread cast the first stone.
  • jkylefultonjkylefulton Squid...or Kid? NNID - majpellRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    MoreYouKnow.jpg

    jkylefulton on
    tOkYVT2.jpg
  • ServoServo Registered User, ClubPA
    edited March 2008
    terrifying and informative

    Servo on
    newsigs.jpg
  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Echo wrote: »
    The loss of a billion lives is a perfectly acceptable exchange to save a billion and one.

    I, uh

    I assume you know you're an idiot.

    Because after typing that, how could you not?

    Veidt was convinced that two billion and one people would die. How many people would you sacrifice to prevent two billion and one deaths if you had the choice, and all of them would die if you didn't make the choice?

    the correct answer is you find another choice or die trying.

    if you're going to give human life a mathematical value, you then have to calculate how the people that will live will benefit humanity vs. those that don't. you could take this to include their prodgeny, but i won't.

    edit: dye !=die.

    You realize that you're advocating never fielding a military. Sending troops into battle means you're accepting that their lives are an acceptable sacrifice for the lives back home that they will save.

    The 'find another choice' route, while nice, is not always feasible. And you won't find more solutions just by wanting them harder. I'm not trying to justify what ozymandias did here, just saying that your viewpoint is unsupportable by real life.

    SageinaRage on
  • PantheraOncaPantheraOnca Registered User regular
    edited March 2008

    You realize that you're advocating never fielding a military. Sending troops into battle means you're accepting that their lives are an acceptable sacrifice for the lives back home that they will save.

    The 'find another choice' route, while nice, is not always feasible. And you won't find more solutions just by wanting them harder. I'm not trying to justify what ozymandias did here, just saying that your viewpoint is unsupportable by real life.

    As long as the army is made up of people who chose to be there, im fine with that.

    this isn't about people sacrificing their lives to save others. this is about someone deciding that x people should die because it will save x+1 and the x group has no say in the matter.

    edit: in conclusion, if 2 billion people want to sacrifice themselves to save 2 billion and one, thats completely acceptable.

    PantheraOnca on
  • VirralVirral Registered User
    edited March 2008
    Ummm I'm completely comfortable with never fielding a military. I accept that this is unrealistic, but why does that make it a bad thing to wish for?

    All these people who say its just maths and they would kill X to save Y... I wonder how many of them would still be comfortable with it if they were told that they and their families would have to be part of group X before pressing the button.

    Virral on
    2vlp7o9.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.