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.
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?
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.
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
0
Options
augustwhere you come from is goneRegistered Userregular
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.
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.
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.
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.'
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.
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.
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."
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
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.
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
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 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.
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
0
Options
augustwhere you come from is goneRegistered Userregular
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?).
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
0
Options
augustwhere you come from is goneRegistered Userregular
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Posts
thats what i was getting at, but with a sympathetic view of him.
It dosen't really matter if his limits are physical or psychological. Either way, the man (?) wasn't proof against nuclear Armageddon.
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.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
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.
"No matter what he does," suggests that Dr. Manhattan could or would attempt to change the course of time.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
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.
And I love Watchmen. I got it last year from a forumer and now I want to read it again.
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~sjblatt/watchmen/o.html#1
I don't accept anything as inevitable.
Wow, that's like deep dude.
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.
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
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
But to be honest, I don't think anyone has free will, even without omniscient blue guys floating around.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
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.
Of course it would mean no story, but it makes it a lot harder to take his side.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
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*
But you know hey it's a book.
Stupid question, but did they have suitcase nukes in the 1980s? I was born in 1979, so I'm not really sure.
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.
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.